FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Paradox: Was Nazi Germany a Safe Country?
There is no rest for Giorgia Meloni. The Court of Bologna has sent to the Court of Justice of the European Union the decree of October 21 with which the "Meloni" government determined the list of countries it considers "safe" for the repatriation of immigrants.
According to the Bologna judges, in fact, the criteria used by the government in defining a "safe" country contradict European law.
The decree came to avoid the decision of the court of Rome, which forced the authorities to return from Albania to Italy the immigrants who took refuge in Gjadër.
Designating 19 countries as safe, the decree aims to make possible the transfer of immigrants from these countries to Albania (if their asylum request is rejected) pending the completion of the accelerated deportation procedures provided for in the agreement with Tirana.
Where do the court's doubts come from?
The way in which the government has chosen to define the 19 countries in question as safe is in contrast to the European regulations currently in force, and the Court of Bologna turned to EU judges to clarify which rules should prevail: the Italian ones or European.
Under European Union law, national immigration rules must always be in line with EU law and therefore conflict with the Meloni government decree (which had been the subject of intense discussions between Palazzo Chigi's legal offices and those of presidency of the Republic) was inevitable. The reference of the Court of Bologna to the Court of Justice of the EU only makes this clear.
The concept of "partial" security
The Rome court on October 18 explained that Bangladesh and other countries could not be considered safe based on the "principles, binding on national judges and administrations, announced by the last judgment of the European Court" on October 4. The decision rejected the definition of "safe places of origin" used by Italy because it was based on a concept of "partial" safety. That is, with the idea that countries like Bangladesh, Egypt or Tunisia are safe for the majority of the population, while they are dangerous only for vulnerable minorities such as political opponents or the LGBTQI+ community. For the EU Court in Luxembourg, however, it is not permissible to exclude categories of people from this definition: a country is either safe for everyone or it is not safe for anyone.
The Court of Bologna refers to this conflict and asking the Court of Justice of the EU that the decree should not be implemented because only partial security cannot exist.
Paradox: "Was Nazi Germany a Safe Country?"
"The system of international protection is, by its very nature, a legal system of guarantee for minorities exposed to risks from agents of persecution", wrote the judges of Bologna. "Except in exceptional cases (perhaps the extreme cases of Romania during the Ceausescu regime or Pol Pot's Cambodia), persecution is always exercised by a majority against some, sometimes very small, minority. It can be said, paradoxically, that Germany under the Nazi regime was an extremely safe place for the vast majority of the German population: excluding Jews, homosexuals, political opponents, Roma people and other minority groups, over 60 million. The Germans boasted an enviable state of security. The same can be said about Italy under the fascist regime. If a country were to be considered safe when safety is guaranteed to the general population, the legal notion of a safe country of origin could be applied to almost all countries in the world, and would therefore be a notion without any legal consistency." , conclude the judges. /Adapted "Pamphlet" from "Corriere Della Sera"
Lini një Përgjigje