Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:334
Date: 2026-04-23
Language of the case: Italian

Translation C-414/25 – 1 
Case C-414/25 [Sedrata] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
24 June 2025 
Referring court: 
Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
20 June 2025 
Appellants: 
Ministero dell’Interno 
Questura di Roma 
Respondents: 
S.H. 
A.H. 
  
… 
SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION 
FIRST CHAMBER – CRIMINAL 
… 
ORDER 
on the appeals brought by: 
Ministero dell’Interno [Ministry of the Interior] and Questura di Roma [Rome 
Police Headquarters], …  
in the proceedings brought against 
 
i The name of this case is fictitious. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
2  
S.H., 
and 
A.H., 
against the orders of 24 April 2025 issued by the Corte di appello di Roma (Court 
of Appeal, Rome, Italy) 
having read the brief submitted by the Prosecutor General …, who requested the 
annulment and referral of the contested measure; 
having read the brief submitted by the defence counsel for the detained 
persons …, who requested the dismissal of the appeals; 
… [procedure] 
Having considered in fact and in law 
1. Subject matter of the proceedings and relevant facts 
These proceedings arise from the joinder of two separate proceedings (Docket 
Nos 14054 and 14055 of 2025) which have features in common. 
1.1. First proceedings (No 14054 of 2025) 
On 16 September 2024, the Prefetto di Ancona [Ancona Prefect] ordered the 
expulsion of Tunisian citizen S.H. from the national territory by escorting him to 
the border. The Prefect’s order states that the Tunisian citizen had entered Italy by 
presenting himself at the air border of Rome Fiumicino on 2 September 2021; that 
during his stay he had committed a number of offences; that on 10 September 
2024 the Ancona Prefect rejected his application for the renewal of his residence 
permit. 
On 22 March 2025, since it had not yet been possible to proceed with the 
expulsion, because there was no aircraft available and because the person had not 
provided a document necessary for his return, the Ancona Prefect ordered he be 
detained at the Bari Return Centre. 
On 24 March 2025 the Giudice di pace di Bari (Magistrate, Bari, Italy) endorsed 
that detention order. 
On 11 April 2025, the Ministry of the Interior transferred the Tunisian national 
from the Bari Return Centre to the Gjader Return Centre, which is situated in the 
territory of the Republic of Albania and was established in implementation of the 
Protocol between the Government of the Italian Republic and the Council of 
Ministers of the Republic of Albania on the strengthening of cooperation in the 
field of migration – concluded in Rome on 6 November 2023 (‘the Protocol’) and 
ratified in Italy by [Legge 21 febbraio 2024, n. 14 – Ratifica ed esecuzione del 
Protocollo tra il Governo della Repubblica italiana e il Consiglio dei ministri della 
SEDRATA 
 
3 
Repubblica di Albania per il rafforzamento della collaborazione in materia 
migratoria, fatto a Roma il 6 novembre 2023, nonché norme di coordinamento con 
l’ordinamento interno (Law No14, ‘ratifying and executing the Protocol between 
the Government of the Italian Republic and the Council of Ministers of the 
Republic of Albania on the strengthening of cooperation in the field of migration, 
concluded in Rome on 6 November 2023, and provisions for coordination with 
domestic legislation’), of 21 February 2024 (‘law No 14 of 2024’))]. 
On 22 April 2025, while staying at the Gjader Return Centre, the Tunisian 
national applied for international protection. 
Still on 22 April 2025, the Rome Questore [Rome Police Chief] ordered the 
detention of the Tunisian citizen at the Gjader Centre, pursuant to Article 6(3) of 
[Decreto legislativo n. 142 Attuazione della direttiva 2013/33/UE recante norme 
relative all’accoglienza dei richiedenti protezione internazionale, nonchè della 
direttiva 2013/32/UE, recante procedure comuni ai fini del riconoscimento e della 
revoca dello status di protezione internazionale (Legislative Decree No 142 of 
18 August 2015 transposing Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of 
applicants for international protection, and directive 2013/32/UE Directive 
2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on 
common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, of 
18 August 2015 (GURI No 214 of 15 September 2015) (‘Legislative Decree 
No 142 of 2015’))]. 
On 23 April 2025, after hearing the person concerned, the Territorial Commission 
rejected his application for international protection, deeming that his return to the 
territory of his State of origin would not expose him to the risk of persecution. 
On 24 April 2025, the Rome Court of Appeal did not endorse the detention 
ordered by the Rome Police Chief on 22 April 2025. 
In the grounds of that decision, the Court of Appeal held that the rules set out by 
Law No 14 of 21 February 2024, interpreted in the light of Article 9 of Directive 
2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on 
common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, which 
provides for the right of a person applying for international protection to remain in 
the territory of the State for the time necessary to examine the application, entailed 
the obligation to return the Tunisian national to the Italian territory. The Court of 
Appeal added that, in implementation of Article 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU, 
Article 7(1) of Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008 provides that the 
applicant is authorised to remain in the territory of the State until a decision is 
taken by the Territorial Commission. 
This principle also applies to the case of ‘secondary’ detention under Article 6(3) 
of Legislative Decree 142 of 2015, by virtue of the provision of Article 6(7), 
whereby an applicant detained under paragraphs 2, 3 and 3a, second sentence, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
4  
who lodges a judicial appeal against a rejection decision by the Territorial 
Commission under Article 35a of Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008, 
as amended, shall remain in the centre until the adoption of the measure referred 
to in Article 35a(4), and for as long as he/she is authorised to remain in the 
national territory as a result of the judicial appeal lodged. 
From this provision, the Court of Appeal drew the consequence that, even 
following the refusal of the Territorial Commission and within the time limits for 
challenging the refusal or when the related judicial proceedings concerning such a 
pronouncement of refusal are pending, the status of asylum seeker is compatible 
with that of detained person, under the conditions of the law, but not with removal 
from the territory of the State where he or she has the right to wait for the 
proceedings to be concluded; therefore, such foreign national, even if detained, 
has the right to remain on the territory of the State, if he or she is an asylum 
seeker, until the decision on the suspension of the refusal and, in any case, for as 
long as he or she is authorised to do so by a judicial appeal remaining pending, 
and may not be expelled or repatriated in the meantime. 
Still according to the challenged measure, the legal reconstruction summarised 
above is also consistent with the provisions of Article 32(4) of Legislative Decree 
25 of 2008, according to which ‘the decision mentioned in paragraph 1(b)(b-a) 
and (b-b) of this article and the occurrence of the circumstances provided for in 
Articles 23, 29 and 29a entail, upon expiry of the time limit for appeal, the 
obligation for the applicant to leave the national territory …; the decision also 
includes a statement of compulsory return …; the provincial police chief shall 
proceed in accordance with the same Article 13(4) and (5), without prejudice to 
the effects referred to in Article 35-a(3) and (4) of this decree …’. 
It follows that, even under this provision of law, and even in the case of a rejection 
of an application for asylum by the administrative authorities on the grounds that 
it is manifestly unfounded and/or in the case of a repeated application, a foreign 
national seeking asylum may not be repatriated until the expiry of the time limit 
for appealing against the refusal pronounced by the administrative authorities. 
In conclusion, a foreign national asylum seeker has the right to stay in the Italian 
territory and, in any case, cannot be expelled and repatriated, with the 
consequence that he or she cannot be detained at the Gjader Centre, even after a 
refusal pronounced by the Territorial Commission, until the expiry of the time 
limit to appeal or, if an appeal against the refusal has been filed, a decision on the 
application for suspension has been pronounced. 
From the inapplicability of the rules of the Protocol and the related provisions of 
the law ratifying it to the detained person, as an asylum seeker who is neither 
deportable nor returnable, it was decided that his detention at the Gjader centre 
should not be endorsed. 
SEDRATA 
 
5 
On 29 April 2025, the Ministry of the Interior appealed the Rome Court of Appeal 
decision before the Supreme Court of Cassation. 
In its appeal, the Ministry argued, among other things, that the reference to 
Article 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU was incorrect, given that, pursuant to 
Article 3(4) of Law No 14 of 2024, the facilities listed in the annex to the 
protocol, including the Gjader Centre, are equivalent to the centres referred to in 
Article 14 of [Decreto legislativo n. 286 – Testo unico delle disposizioni 
concernenti la disciplina dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello 
straniero (Legislative Decree No 286 - Consolidated law on the provisions 
concerning the regulation of immigration and the rules relating to the status of 
foreigners), of 25 July 1998 (GURI No 191 of 18 August 1998) (‘Legislative 
Decree N 142 of 2015’))]. 
1.2. The second proceedings (No 14055 of 2025) 
On 19 August 2020, the Prefetto di Firenze [Florence Prefect] ordered the 
expulsion of the Algerian national A.H. from the national territory by means of 
escorting him to the border; the Prefect’s ordered stated that the Algerian national 
had entered Italy by presenting himself at the border in Genoa on 4 August 2008 
and that on 4 August 2020 the Florence Prefect expelled him by ordering him to 
leave the territory of the State within seven days, but that the order had not been 
enforced; following this measure, the national citizen was not expelled from the 
territory of the State and remained free. 
On 14 February 2025, when the Algerian national was tracked down again in Italy 
during a check, it was verified that an unenforced expulsion order remained 
pending, and, since it was not yet possible to proceed with the expulsion because 
the person had not provided a document necessary to proceed with the return, the 
Questore di Latina [Latina Police Chief] ordered that he be detained at the Return 
Centre in Bari. 
On 17 February 2025 the Giudice di pace di Bari (Magistrate, Bari, Italy) 
endorsed that detention order. 
On 24 February 2025, the Questura di Bari [Bari Police Headquarters] asked the 
Embassy of the Republic of Algeria permission to return the Algerian citizen. 
On 11 April 2025 the Ministry of the Interior transferred the Tunisian [Algerian] 
citizen from the Return Centre in Bari to the Return Centre in Gjader. 
On 23 April 2025, while in the Gjader Return Centre, the [Algerian] citizen 
applied for international protection. 
Still on 23 April 2025, the Rome Police Chief ordered the detention of the 
[Algerian] citizen at the Gjader Centre, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Legislative 
Decree No 142 of 18 August 2015. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
6  
On 24 April 2025, the Rome Court of Appeal did not endorse the detention 
ordered by the Rome Police Chief on 22 April 2025. 
The grounds match the ones set out in the other measure appealed against. 
On 29 April 2025, the Ministry of the Interior appealed the Rome Court of Appeal 
decision before the Supreme Court of Cassation. 
In its appeal, the Ministry argued, among other things, that the reference to 
Article 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU was incorrect, given that, pursuant to 
Article 3(4) of Law No 14 of 2024, the facilities listed in the annex to the 
protocol, including the Gjader Centre, are equivalent to the centres referred to in 
Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 286 of 1998. 
1.3. The proceedings. 
… [procedure] 
On 29 May 2025, the two proceedings were joined, as they raise common issues. 
… [procedure] 
2. Relevant provisions of national and Union law 
2.1. The provisions of national law 
For the purposes of this decision, what is essentially relevant is Law No 14 of 
21 February 2024, which authorises the ratification and enforcement of the 
aforementioned Protocol. 
Law No 14 of 2024 was amended, in the terms indicated below in this paragraph, 
by [Decreto-legge n. 37 – Disposizioni urgenti per il contrasto dell’immigrazione 
irregolare (décret-loi no 37 laying down urgent provisions for the fight against 
illegal immigration) (GURI no 73 of 28 March 2025) (‘Legislative Decree No 37 
of 2025’)], converted with amendments by Law No 75 of 23 May 2025. 
Conversion Law No 75 of 2025 was published in Italian Official Journal No 118 
of 23 May 2025 and entered into force on 24 May 2025, pursuant to Article 1(2) 
of Law No 75 of 2025. The rules further supplementing the provisions of 
Legislative Decree No 37 of 2025, as introduced by the conversion law, and 
which will be discussed in paragraph 2.3 below, do not appear to be directly 
applicable to the two appeals ratione temporis. Nevertheless, the court does not 
deem that this is relevant to the submission of the questions, for the reasons that 
will be set out in paragraph 2.3 below. 
SEDRATA 
 
7 
The avowed purpose of the Protocol is to ‘strengthen bilateral cooperation 
between the Parties on the management of migration flows from third countries, in 
accordance with international and European law’ (Article 2). 
Article 1(1)(d) of the Protocol sets out that ‘migrants’ means ‘third-country 
nationals and stateless persons for whom the subsistence or absence of the 
requirements for entry, stay or residence in the territory of the Italian Republic 
must be ascertained’. 
Article 4 contains the essential aspects of the legal framework, providing for the 
right of the Italian Republic to use certain areas of Albanian territory to establish 
facilities for the administrative detention of migrants. In particular, it is provided 
that the facilities be managed by Italy in accordance with national and European 
regulations and accommodate a maximum of 3 000 migrants (paragraph 1) and 
that the entry and stay in Albanian territory of migrants accommodated in the 
facilities referred to in paragraph 1 be allowed ‘for the sole purpose of performing 
border or return procedures provided for by Italian and European legislation, and 
for the time strictly necessary to perform them’ (paragraph 3). Paragraph 3 also 
sets out that ‘in the event that the right to stay in the facilities ceases for any 
reason whatsoever, the Italian Party shall immediately transfer these migrants out 
of the Albanian territory’. 
It is then specified that the entry of migrants into Albanian territorial waters and 
territory takes place exclusively with the means of the Italian authorities and is 
permitted by the Albanian authorities for the sole purpose of carrying out border 
and return procedures, and for the time strictly necessary to perform them. It is 
therefore ruled out that other types of vessels, such as those of non-governmental 
organisations active in the Mediterranean for the rescue of migrants, are allowed 
to take people to Albania (paragraph 4). 
It is also provided that the Italian Party has the duty of adopting ‘the necessary 
measures in order to ensure migrants remain within the areas, preventing their 
unauthorised exit into the territory of the Republic of Albania’. Moreover, in case 
of unauthorised exit, the Albanian authorities will be allowed to take the migrants 
back to the centres, with the Italian Party bearing the costs (Article 6(5) and (6)). 
Article 9(1) provides that the stay of migrants in the territory of the Republic of 
Albania in implementation of this Protocol may not exceed the maximum 
detention period allowed by the Italian legislation in force. 
The right of defence is governed by Article 9(2), which provides that ‘the Parties 
shall allow access to the facilities provided for in this Protocol to lawyers, their 
assistants, as well as international organisations and European Union agencies 
providing advice and assistance to applicants for international protection, within 
the limits provided for by the applicable Italian, European and Albanian 
legislation’. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
8  
Then, specific provisions regulate the access of Italian personnel to Albanian 
territory, the liability for any damages and the duration of the Protocol, which is 
set at five years with tacit renewal (unless terminated by either party with at least 
six months’ notice). Finally, the Protocol has two annexes: one dedicated to the 
identification of the areas granted (area A relating to the facilities for entry 
procedures and area B relating to the facilities for establishing the prerequisites for 
international protection and for returning migrants not entitled to enter and stay in 
the Italian territory), and the other one dedicated to expenses. 
With reference to the applicable regulations, further provisions are contained in 
the aforementioned Law No 14 of 2024. 
In particular, in addition to coordination provisions for the authorities competent 
to decide on the procedures applicable to migrants brought to Albania and 
integrating what is stated in the Protocol, Article 3 originally provided that 
‘exclusively persons embarked on vessels of the Italian authorities outside the 
territorial sea of the Republic or of other Member States of the European Union 
may be brought to the areas referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol, including 
as a result of rescue operations’. 
Article 1 of Legislative Decree No 37 of 2025, after deleting the adverb 
‘exclusively’, provides that it is also possible to take to the areas referred to in 
Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol, persons who have been issued with detention 
orders endorsed or extended pursuant to Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 286 
of 1998 (‘the Consolidated Law on Immigration’). 
As a result of this amendment, it is provided that persons who are the recipients of 
detention orders endorsed or extended pursuant to Article 14 of the Consolidated 
Law on Immigration may be transferred to the aforementioned facilities. 
According to Article 14(1), ‘when it is not possible to carry out expulsion 
immediately, by means of accompaniment to the border, or to refuse entry, due to 
transitory situations that hinder the preparation of return or the enforcement of 
removal, the Questore (provincial police chief) shall order that the foreign national 
be detained at the nearest return centre among those identified by decree of the 
Minister for the Interior in agreement with the Minister for Economy and 
Finance’. 
According to the same provision, the situations that may hinder the preparation of 
the return or the enforcement of the removal include the need to provide 
assistance to the foreign national; the need to carry out additional checks on the 
identity or nationality of the foreign national; the need to obtain travel documents 
or suitable means of transport; the risk of absconding pursuant to Article 13(4-a) 
of the Consolidated Law on Immigration; the absence of return agreements with 
the country to which the migrant should be expelled. 
Article 1 of Legislative Decree 37 of 2025 also intervened on the regulation of the 
effects of the transfer from the facilities referred to in Article 14 of the 
SEDRATA 
 
9 
Consolidated Law on Immigration, by adding two sentences to Article 3(4) Law 
No 14, which now has the following wording: ‘The facilities indicated in 
Annex 1(A) and (B) to the Protocol are equated to those provided for in 
Article 10-b(1) of the Consolidated Law on immigration regulations and on rules 
governing the condition of foreigners (Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 
1998). The return facility indicated in Annex 1(B) to the Protocol is equivalent to 
the centres provided for in Article 14(1) of the aforementioned Consolidated Law 
(Legislative Decree No 286 of 1998). A transfer from the facilities referred to in 
Article 14(1) of the aforementioned Consolidated Law (Legislative Decree 
No 286 of 1998) to the facility referred to in Annex 1(B) to the Protocol does not 
invalidate a detention adopted pursuant to the same Article 14, nor does it have 
any effect on the administrative procedure to which the foreign national is 
subjected. A foreign national transferred to the facility referred to in Annex 1(B) 
to the Protocol shall remain there, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Legislative Decree 
No 142 of 18 August 2015, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the 
application for international protection has been submitted there for the sole 
purpose of delaying or preventing refusal of entry or expulsion’. 
With that rule, the legislature intended, first of all, to regulate the relationship 
between the ‘transfer’ from the facilities referred to in Article 14(1) of the 
Consolidated Law on Immigration and a detention order adopted pursuant to the 
same provision, by providing that such transfer does not invalidate such order, nor 
does it affect the administrative procedure to which the foreign national is 
subjected. 
It then explicitly provides that a foreign national detained in a facility pursuant to 
Article 14(1) of the Consolidated Law on Immigration and, therefore, a foreign 
national awaiting expulsion (not an asylum seeker) be transferred to the facility 
referred to in Annex 1(B) to the Protocol, and ‘stay’ there even after submitting an 
application for international protection, when such application may be deemed to 
have been lodged for improper purposes. Following the transfer, an application for 
international protection, when deemed to have been lodged for improper purposes, 
still entails the ‘stay’ of the foreign national in the centre in Albania. 
Article 1(2) of Legislative Decree 37 of 2025 amended Article 14(1) and (5) of the 
Consolidated Law on Immigration, referring to cases of ‘transfer of the foreign 
national to another centre’. 
Specifically, Article 14(1) now provides that: ‘When it is not possible to carry out 
expulsion immediately, by means of accompaniment to the border, or to refuse 
entry, due to transitory situations that hinder the preparation of return or the 
enforcement of removal, the Questore (provincial police chief) shall order that the 
foreign national be detained for the time strictly necessary at the nearest return 
centre, among those identified or established by decree of the Minister for the 
Interior, in agreement with the Minister for Economy and Finance. To this end, 
the provincial police chief submits a request to assign a place to the Central 
Directorate for Immigration and Border Police of the Ministry of the Interior’s 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
10  
Public Security Department, pursuant to Article 35 of Law No 189 of 30 July 
2002, which may order the transfer of the foreign national to another centre’. 
An explicit provision concerning the power to order the transfer of the foreign 
national to another centre has been added to paragraph 5 after the first sentence, 
with the consequential specification as to the effects of such transfer on the 
detention status. 
Following the amendments introduced by Legislative Decree No 37, Article 14(5) 
now has the following wording: ‘Validation entails a stay in the centre for a total 
of three months. This is without prejudice to the right to order, at any time, the 
transfer of the foreign national to another centre, pursuant to paragraph 1, second 
sentence. The aforementioned transfer does not cause the adopted detention to 
lapse and no new validation is required’. 
Article 3(3) of Law No 14 of 2024 then equates the areas referred to in 
Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol to the border or transit areas identified by the 
decree of the Minister for the Interior adopted pursuant to Article 28-a(4) of 
Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008. 
The facilities present in Albania are equated to the crisis points referred to in 
Article 10-b(1), of Legislative Decree No 286/1998 or, in case of return, to the 
centres referred to in Article 14(1) of the same legislative decree. 
Case-law and applicable law are governed by Article 4, which provides that the 
Consolidated Law on Immigration, Legislative Decree No 251 of 2007, 
Legislative Decree No 25 of 2008, Legislative Decree No 142 of 2015 and ‘the 
Italian and European regulations concerning the requirements and procedures 
relating to the admission and stay of foreigners in the national territory’ apply to 
migrants ‘in that they are compatible’. 
As regards the applicable procedures, they are under Italian jurisdiction, with the 
exclusive territorial jurisdiction being conferred on the specialised Section on 
immigration, international protection and free movement of citizens of the 
European Union at the District Court of Rome, and on the Rome Magistrate 
Office. 
2.2. The EU legal framework 
For the reasons that will be indicated in paragraph 3 below, the application of the 
national provisions mentioned above requires examining questions of 
interpretation concerning, in particular, Directive 2008/115/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and 
procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals 
(Articles 3, 6, 8, 15, 16) and Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and 
withdrawing international protection (Article 9). 
SEDRATA 
 
11 
2.3. The relevance of the questions in light of the relevant national case-law 
Indeed, generally speaking, and from the point of view of the interpretation of 
national law, it should be noted that, in the two proceedings before this Court, the 
question immediately posed by the appeals is whether the person who receives an 
expulsion and detention order, once brought to the areas made available by the 
Republic of Albania, can remain there even after an application for international 
protection has been submitted. 
In terms of national law, such stay is now explicitly provided for as a result of the 
amendments approved during the conversion of Legislative Decree No 37 of 2025 
into Law No 75 of 2025, which, introducing further changes, with effect from 
24 May 2025, to Article 3(4) of Law No. 14 of 2024, set out that ‘a foreign 
national transferred to the facility referred to in Annex 1(B) to the Protocol shall 
remain there, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Legislative Decree No 142 of 18 August 
2015, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the application for 
international protection has been submitted there for the sole purpose of delaying 
or preventing refusal of entry or expulsion’. 
However, as held by this Court in its First Chamber judgment No 17510 of 8 May 
2025, M. …, such a result could be achieved by means of interpretation even 
when the initial provisions of Law 14 of 2024, as amended by Legislative Decree 
No 37 of 2025, were in force. 
According to the latter ruling, in fact, with regard to the administrative detention 
of foreign nationals, Article 3(2) of Law No 14 of 21 February 2024, as amended 
by Article 1(1)(b), of Decree Law No 37 of 28 March 2025, in outlining the 
categories of persons transferable to the detention centre for return located in 
Albania, in execution of the special Italy-Albania Protocol, does not prevent the 
application of Article 6(3) of Legislative Decree No 142 of 18 August 2015, in the 
case in which the foreign national awaiting the enforcement of an expulsion order, 
being hosted at the Albanian facility in Gjader by virtue of an order endorsed by a 
Magistrate pursuant to Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 286 of 26 July 1998, 
applies for international protection, with the consequence that the ‘secondary’ 
detention of the same person is legitimate even after the submission of the 
application, since that facility is to be equated, for all purposes, to the stay centres 
for return existing in the Italian territory referred to in Article 14(1) of the 
aforementioned Legislative Decree No 286 of 1998. 
For the purposes of the relevance of the questions referred for a preliminary 
ruling, it may therefore be reasonably considered that the amendments introduced 
by Conversion Law No 75 of 2025 are merely explanatory of what can be inferred 
from the text introduced by Legislative Decree No 37 of 2025 and pursue the 
objective of avoiding uncertainties in the implementation of the quoted provisions. 
That being said, this Court is aware of the fact that in the European Union context 
the positions of an irregular migrant and of an applicant for international 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
12  
protection are subjected to distinct legal provisions. However, it is deemed 
necessary to note that the peculiar position of a migrant who is applying for 
international protection in Albania requires to verify whether his or her prior 
transfer to the areas set out in the Protocol is compatible with EU law. Indeed, this 
is a situation which, as a result of an authoritative intervention by the Italian State, 
changes the legal context in which the foreign national is at the time he or she 
applies for international protection prior to the enforcement of a legitimate 
expulsion measure. 
3. The interpretation issues of European Union law 
3.1. Introduction 
According to well-established EU case-law, it is necessary, as a preliminary step, 
to verify the presence of factual elements of a material, personal, spatial and 
temporal nature that have a degree of intensity such as to create connecting factors 
between the case at hand and EU law (see, for example, judgment of 
15 November 2011, Dereci and Others, C-256/11, EU:C:2011:734). 
The national court deems that the events brought to its attention have ‘sufficient 
connecting factors’ with EU law, within the meaning given by the case-law of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union (see, inter alia, orders of 28 May 2020, 
U.T.G. – Prefettura di Foggia, C-17/20, EU:C:2020:409, and of 27 April 2017, 
Emmea and Commercial Hub, C-595/16, EU:C:2017:320, and judgments of 
26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, EU:C:2013:105, and of 
15 November 2011, Dereci and Others, C-256/11, EU:C:2011:734). 
The fact that the two non-EU nationals detained in the proceedings giving rise to 
this question for a preliminary ruling have submitted their applications for 
international protection while they were on Albanian territory does not appear to 
hinder the identification of sufficient connecting factors with EU law in the light 
of the territoriality principle set out by the CEAS (Common European Asylum 
System, regarding which see Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU, Article 3(1) of 
Directive 2013/33/EU, Article 3(1) of Regulation 2013/604/EU). 
Indeed, the Court of Justice has recognised its jurisdiction to examine whether a 
national measure is compatible with EU law in situations where a Member State 
decides to extend a right guaranteed by EU law to a situation that would not fall 
within its direct scope (judgment of 7 November 2018, C and A, C-257/17, 
EU:C:2018:876, paragraph 31). 
And, in the case at hand, Article 4(1) of Law No 14 of 20[2]4 expressly provided 
for the extension to non-EU citizens detained in the Gjader centre of the ‘Italian 
and European measures on the requirements and procedures relating to the 
admission and stay of foreign nationals in the national territory’, thus establishing 
SEDRATA 
 
13 
a sufficient connecting factor with EU law that makes it necessary to submit this 
question. 
From another point of view, the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union has also held that there is a ‘sufficient connecting factor’ with EU law even 
where a Member State, exercising a discretionary power provided for by EU 
legislation, has autonomously conferred on itself jurisdiction for examining an 
asylum application, since that ‘discretionary power which forms an integral part of 
the Common European Asylum System provided for by the FUE Treaty and 
developed by the European Union legislature’, ends up ‘implementing European 
Union law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter’ (judgments of 
21 December 2011, N. S. and Others, C-411/10 and C-493/10, EU:C:2011:865 
and of 21 December 2011, N. S. and Others, C-411/10 and C-493/10, 
EU:C:2011:865)). 
And this is precisely what the Italian State has done in the cases that are the 
subject matter of these two judicial proceedings, because, by registering the 
applications for protection and deciding on them, it has autonomously deemed 
itself as having jurisdiction to examine two applications for international 
protection that had been filed in the territory of the Republic of Albania, thereby 
implementing EU law under Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
In the two judicial proceedings on which this Court must decide, therefore, what is 
at issue is the implementation of EU law, and, in particular, Article 18 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that the 
right to asylum is guaranteed not only in accordance with the rules laid down in 
the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 
relating to the status of refugees, but also in accordance with the TEU and the 
TFEU. Article 67(2) TFEU entrusts the Union with the task of defining a common 
policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity 
between Member States, which is fair towards third-country nationals. 
Article 78(1) TFEU then requires the Union to develop a common policy on 
asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection. And Article 78(2)(a) 
TFEU provides that within the framework of this policy, ‘a uniform status of 
asylum for nationals of third countries, valid throughout the Union’ must be 
ensured. 
Article 79(1) TFEU provides, on the other hand, that the Union shall develop a 
common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient 
management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing 
legally in Member States, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to 
combat, illegal immigration. And Article 79(2)(c) TFEU provides that the Union 
has the power to regulate ‘removal and repatriation of persons residing without 
authorisation’. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
14  
Recital 2 to Directive 2013/32/EU states that ‘a common policy on asylum, 
including a Common European Asylum System, is a constituent part of the 
European Union’s objective of establishing progressively an area of freedom, 
security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek 
protection in the Union’. And Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, which is intended to 
replace Directive 2013/32/EU as of 12 June 2026 sets out in recital 3 that ‘the 
Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is based on common standards for 
asylum procedures, recognition and protection offered at Union level and 
reception conditions and establishes a system for determining the Member State 
responsible for examining an application for international protection’. 
Ultimately, a reading of the primary and secondary rules of EU law shows that the 
implementation of a common European asylum system constitutes one of the key 
EU objectives. 
The decision of the Italian State to transport to a territory outside the territory of 
the Union non-EU citizens – whose detention is explained, first, with a view to 
their physical expulsion and, then, after the submission of an application for 
international protection, by the need to examine it – may affect the 
implementation of a common asylum system. This last consideration appears to 
connect this judicial case to EU law, since the detained person is not guaranteed 
the possibility of awaiting the outcome of the asylum application in the territory of 
the Union. 
It is true, indeed, that the right to await the outcome of the asylum application in 
the territory of the State where it is lodged is only a ‘a particular expression of the 
principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the expulsion of an applicant for 
international protection to a third country as long as a decision has not been taken 
on his application’ (judgment of 6 September 2017, Slovakia and Hungary v 
Council, C-643/15 and C-647/15, EU:C:2017:631). This right, therefore, does not 
preclude the person from being moved to States other than the one in which the 
application was made, as long as the prohibition of refoulement is guaranteed 
(judgment of 6 September 2017, Slovakia and Hungary v Council, C-643/15 and 
C-647/15, EU:C:2017:631)). The latter prohibition in the present case is 
guaranteed by the circumstance that the Italian State undertook in Law No 14 of 
2024 not to reject persons until their applications are examined. 
And yet, in this case, unlike the one which is the subject matter of the judgment of 
6 September 2017, Slovakia and Hungary v Council (C-643/15 and C-647/15, 
EU:C:2017:631), the transfer took place outside a Member State, which could 
constitute a form of non-compliant implementation of Article 3 of Directive 
2008/115/EC, which does not allow a migrant to be expelled except to the country 
of origin or a country of transit or a country chosen by the person concerned. 
In a precedent dealing with a different question but in relation to which the 
European rules to be applied are the same, the Court of Justice held that the 
question referred for a preliminary ruling was admissible, pointing out that the 
SEDRATA 
 
15 
‘the question referred concerns the interpretation of provisions of Directive 
2008/115 and Directive 2013/32 which are relevant as regards the grounds of 
illegality of that decision invoked, according to the order for reference, by the 
applicant in the main proceedings. It is therefore not manifestly clear from the 
case file submitted to the Court that the interpretation of EU law sought bears no 
relation to the purpose of the action, or that the problem raised by the national 
court is hypothetical’ (judgment of 9 November 2023, Odbor azylové a migrační 
politiky MV (Scope of the Return Directive), C-257/22, EU:C:2023:852, 
paragraph 29). 
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is deemed, for the purposes of 
Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of Cases before the Court of 
Justice, that in the judicial proceedings on which this Court must decide there is a 
substantial connection which makes it necessary to refer the matter to the Court of 
Justice in order that, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, it may provide the national 
court with all the elements of interpretation of EU law that may be useful to define 
the dispute it has been seized with. 
3.2. The first question referred for a preliminary ruling 
A first question raised by the aforementioned regulatory framework, in relation to 
the provisions directly relevant to the decision in the case brought before this 
Court, is whether Directive 2008/115/EC, and in particular Articles 3, 6, 8, 15 and 
16 thereof, preclude the application of domestic legislation (Article 3(2) of Law 
No 14 of 21 February 2024) which allows to take to the areas referred to in 
Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol between the Government of the Italian Republic 
and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania on the strengthening of 
cooperation in the field of migration, concluded in Rome on 6 November 2023 
(‘the Protocol’) persons subject to detention measures endorsed or extended 
pursuant to Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 286 of 1998 (Consolidated Law 
on Immigration), in the absence of any predetermined and identifiable prospect of 
return. 
For the reasons set out above, the case at hand does not concern persons 
‘embarked on means of transport of the Italian authorities outside the territorial 
sea of the Republic or of other Member States of the European Union, including 
as a result of rescue operations’ (Article 3(2), first part, of Law No 14 of 2024), 
but recipients of detention orders endorsed or extended pursuant to Article 14 of 
the Consolidated Law on Immigration. 
As mentioned above, once the two persons concerned arrived at the Gjader 
Centre, they applied for international protection and were the recipients of a 
detention order, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Legislative Decree No 142 of 2015, 
due to the application being deemed to have been lodged for improper purposes. 
But the assessment of their situation as applicants in the areas indicated by the 
Protocol is likely to be conditioned by their presence on the territory of a non-EU 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
16  
Member State, which remains such, notwithstanding the management powers of 
the area granted to the Italian authorities by Article 4(2) of the Protocol and the 
enjoyment powers under Article 3 of the Protocol. 
The regulatory system equates: (1) the areas referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of the 
Protocol to the border or transit areas identified by the decree of the Minister for 
the Interior adopted pursuant to Article 28-a(4) of Legislative Decree No 25 of 
28 January 2008 (Article 3(3) of Law No 14 of 2024); (2) the facilities indicated 
in Annex 1(A) and (B) to the Protocol to those provided for by Article 10-b(1) of 
Legislative Decree No 286 of 1998; (3) the return facility indicated in Annex 1(B) 
to the Protocol to the centres provided for under Article 14(1) of the 
aforementioned Legislative Decree No 286 of 1998. 
Such alignment constitutes the technical instrument that makes it possible to 
identify, along with the legal references in Article 4 of Law No 14 of 2024, the 
legal framework concretely applicable to the disputes at hand in the areas 
subjected to Italian jurisdiction. 
However, the rules just cited do not transform the areas in question into a portion 
of Italian territory, for the obvious reason that the application of Italian laws does 
not derive from the direct exercise of sovereignty by the Member State, but from 
an international agreement with a non-member State. 
All this raises the question of the binding nature, in terms of EU guarantees, of the 
legal framework applied to the status of migrants. 
In any event, the lawfulness of the detention ordered in respect of persons 
transported to the Albanian centre – which is the subject matter of these 
proceedings – is related, as mentioned above, to the issue of how to understand the 
scope of the guarantees provided, as will be further discussed below, by 
Article 9(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing 
international protection. 
The first sentence of Article 9(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU sets out that ‘applicants 
shall be allowed to remain in the Member State, for the sole purpose of the 
procedure, until the determining authority has made a decision in accordance with 
the procedures at first instance set out in Chapter III’. 
These rules raise the question, in the legal context outlined above, of whether the 
applicant – that is, the person who has submitted an application for international 
protection to the authority of the Member State – has the right to remain in the 
territory of the Member State, even if he or she has been removed from that 
territory as a result of a decision made by the national authority, which, however, 
does not constitute a return within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 
2008/115/EC, as will be discussed below. 
SEDRATA 
 
17 
In this regard, it should be noted that, as stated by recital 16 of Directive 
2008/115/EC, ‘the use of detention for the purpose of removal should be limited 
and subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and 
objectives pursued’. In this perspective, recital 16 adds, ‘detention is justified only 
to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less 
coercive measures would not be sufficient’. 
Here, it becomes necessary to focus precisely on the purpose of removal and, 
consequently, on the objective pursued by all detention measures. 
Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC clarifies what is meant by return and 
identifies it as ‘the process of a third-country national going back – whether in 
voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced — to: 
– his or her country of origin, or 
– a country of transit in accordance with Community or bilateral readmission 
agreements or other arrangements, or 
– another third country, to which the third-country national concerned voluntarily 
decides to return and in which he or she will be accepted’. 
If, in fact, as Article 15(5) of the same directive reiterates, detention shall be 
maintained for as long as the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled 
‘and it is necessary to ensure successful removal’, one must verify that the 
measures adopted – with the consequent deprivation of personal liberty that 
accompanies them – are suitable to ensure the return as identified above. 
And yet, it is not possible to find either in the Protocol to which Law No 14 of 
2024 gave effect or in this latter piece of legislation any precise and specific legal 
provisions documenting the pursuit of the objective of ensuring the return of 
irregular migrants. Article 4(3) of the Protocol provides that ‘the competent 
Albanian authorities shall allow the entry and stay in the Albanian territory of 
migrants accommodated in the facilities referred to in paragraph 1, for the sole 
purpose of carrying out the border or return procedures provided for by Italian and 
European legislation and for the time strictly necessary for them’. 
Leaving aside the reference to border procedures, it is noted that that statement of 
purpose (carrying out return procedures) is not followed by any implementation 
provision, in the sense that nowhere in the agreement is it made clear how the 
objective is to be sought, and even less how the objective would be achievable – 
in a territory which remains, as mentioned above, that of a non-Member State, 
even though subjected to Italian jurisdiction – with greater efficiency than in 
Italian territory and with the necessary respect for the guarantees set out by the 
European Union rules in force. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
18  
The Protocol regulates, first of all, the removal from the Albanian territory (likely 
with the return to Italy) in the event that ‘the title to stay in the facilities lapses for 
any reason whatsoever’ (Article 4(3), second sentence, of the Protocol). 
On the other hand, the meaning of the ‘removal of migrants from the Albanian 
territory’ in the event of the termination of the undefined ‘procedures carried out 
in accordance with Italian law’ (Article 9(1), second sentence of the Protocol) 
remains entirely undetermined with respect to the return objective. 
Directive 2008/115/EC seems to suggest – and indeed the interpretation doubt 
submitted to the Court of Justice is formulated in such terms – that, in the 
presence of irregular migrants, the Member State does not have unlimited powers 
to transfer them, as a general rule being only able to order their return, which is to 
be understood in the terms of the cited Article 3 of the Directive. 
Now, it is certainly to be ruled out that Albania is the country of origin of the 
migrants or the country to which they have chosen to go (among other things, the 
condition of temporary detention is ontologically incompatible with such 
hypothesis). 
Albania, moreover, cannot even be identified as a transit State with respect to 
irregular entry, both because it does not appear that it was crossed in order to 
arrive in Italy and because, in any case, there is no readmission agreement or any 
other agreement pursuing the objective of return from the Albanian territory. 
In this regard, in fact, the European Union’s readmission agreements identify 
instruments of cooperation between Member States and third countries and 
establish rapid and effective procedures for the identification, provision of 
documents and return of persons from one of the parties to the agreement who 
reside without authorisation in the territory of the other party. 
The avowed transitory nature of the irregular migrants’ stay in Albania therefore 
raises the issue of the compatibility of their transfer to the territory of a third State 
with Directive 2008/115/EC – along with the problems referred to above, of 
identifying the binding nature of the guarantees provided with respect to the EU 
parameters – and, in particular, compatibility with the necessary aim of their 
return. 
It must be added that the transfer to a third State, albeit in areas under Italian 
jurisdiction, inevitably entails that the restriction of personal freedom cannot be 
circumscribed for the time strictly necessary for the judicial verification of the 
conditions legitimating the detention, since, in the event of detention authorisation 
being denied by the judicial authority, it is not possible to order the immediate 
release if migrants as if they were in a Member State (albeit taking into account 
the time strictly necessary for communication between the judicial authority and 
the authority detaining such person), as migrants are not allowed, under 
Article 6(5) and (6) of the Protocol, to leave the centre, and need to wait to be 
transferred back to Italy. 
SEDRATA 
 
19 
If the national rules allowing the transfer of irregular migrants to the territory of a 
non-member State were to be considered incompatible with those EU rules, it 
should be held – out of consistency, under the principle of effectiveness of judicial 
protection – that the application for international protection submitted in the 
Gjader centre should be understood as submitted not only to Italian authorities, 
but also in the territory of the State from which the irregular migrant was 
unlawfully removed, with the consequent full application of Article 9(1) of 
Directive 2013/32/EU. And this with the consequence that the migrant would have 
the right to return to and stay in Italy, given that, as mentioned above, the areas 
indicated by the Protocol do not constitute Italian territory. 
3.3. The second question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Should, on the other hand, the transfer to the Gjader centre be considered 
legitimate, the second question detailed below arises. 
As already mentioned, Article 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU – the scope of which is 
extended, according to Article 3 of the same Directive, ‘to all applications for 
international protection made in the territory, including at the border, in the 
territorial waters or in the transit zones of the Member States’ – provides that 
migrants who have applied to an EU Member State for international protection are 
allowed to remain there ‘for the sole purpose of the procedure, until the 
determining authority has made a decision’. 
Hence the recognition of migrants’ right – as specified in Article 2(p) of Directive 
2013/32/EU – to remain ‘in the territory, including at the border or in transit 
zones, of the Member State in which the application for international protection 
has been made or is being examined’. 
Although with a somewhat different wording, the same right was confirmed in 
Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the 
Union. Article 10(1) sets out that: ‘Applicants shall have the right to remain on the 
territory of the Member State in which they are required to be present in 
accordance with Article 17(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 until the determining 
authority has taken a decision on the application in the administrative procedure 
provided for in Chapter III’. 
The aforementioned provision enshrines the very close and essential connection 
between the request for asylum and the right to enter the territory of the Member 
State to which the application for protection has been addressed and to remain 
there until that procedure is finalised. 
The territorial nature of the right to asylum implies, therefore, that the submission 
of the application for protection outside the territory of the State, as provided for 
by the Italy-Albania Protocol, cannot correspond to a lower level of guarantees 
and rights for applicants, even more so when, as in the case at hand, the Italian 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
20  
authorities themselves have taken to a third country the persons who, after 
arriving there, have applied for international protection. 
These, then, are the conditions to be examined in order to establish whether 
submitting an application for international protection in Albania affects the 
described inseparable relationship between asylum and territory. 
In the case at hand, we are dealing with the request submitted by a person who 
was transferred to the Gjader area because he received a detention order for the 
enforcement of an expulsion order, which was issued due to his irregular presence 
in the Italian territory, and who, having arrived in Albania, then submitted an 
application for international protection and was, therefore, subjected to a further 
detention order due to the alleged improper nature of his application, that is, the 
application was allegedly submitted for the sole purpose of delaying or preventing 
the enforcement of the refusal of entry or expulsion. 
The submission of the application for international protection determined the 
change in the status of the person who – from that moment and until the procedure 
introduced by him is defined – is no longer considered as an irregular person and, 
in any case, one to be expelled under the principles and provisions of Directive 
2008/115/EC and the national transposing legislation. 
On this point, it is useful to specify, in line with the orientation expressed by the 
Court of Justice in its judgment of 25 June 2020, Ministerio Fiscal (Authority 
likely to receive an application for international protection) (C-36/20 PPU, 
EU:C:2020:495, paragraph 92), that a third-country national acquires the status of 
an applicant for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(c) of 
Directive 2013/32, from the point when he or she ‘makes’ such an application. 
Article 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU is a rule with direct effect, in that it determines, 
in unequivocal terms, that a person who has submitted an application for 
international protection has the right to remain in the territory of the State until the 
determining authority has taken a decision at first instance, without the need for 
further provisions by the Member State and with specific and exhaustive 
exceptions set out directly by the Union legislature. 
That being said, it is necessary to verify the conformity of the interpretation of the 
domestic legislation with that of the European Union, resulting, as repeatedly 
reiterated by the Court of Justice, from the successful outcome of the efforts duly 
made by the national courts to ensure – as far as possible (see, for example, 
judgments of 27 October 2009, ČEZ, C-115/08, EU:C:2009:660, paragraph 138, 
and of 22 September 2022, Vicente (Action for the recovery of lawyers’ fees), 
C-335/21, EU:C:2022:720, paragraph 72]) – the uniform application in all 
Member States of EU law, an obligation that is logically and legally curtailed by 
the cases where national law cannot be applied in such a way as to produce a 
result which is compatible with that envisaged by EU law (judgment of 
8 November 2016, Ognyanov, C-554/14, paragraph 66). 
SEDRATA 
 
21 
As mentioned, the investigation into the case at hand raises doubts as to the 
compatibility of the Italy-Albania Protocol and of Law No 14 of 2024 with 
Article 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU, in so far as they lead to the detention outside 
the territory of an EU State of a foreign national who has submitted a request for 
protection to an Italian authority, albeit being outside the national territory, but not 
as a result of a free choice. 
Indeed, the finding that the aforementioned areas covered by the Protocol cannot 
be considered Italian territory, on the one hand, does not rule out that the request 
for protection can be considered to have been submitted to the national authority 
and, on the other hand, raises the interpretative doubt as to whether, in this case, 
the applicant must return to the territory of the Member State where he is 
authorised to remain under the aforementioned Article 9(1). 
4. The questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
In light of the above considerations, this Court believes that it is necessary to 
respect the principle recently reaffirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 
15 October 2024, KUBERA (C-144/23, EU:C:2024:881, paragraph 36), whereby a 
court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial 
remedy under national law cannot be relieved of the obligation laid down in the 
third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, unless it has established that the question 
raised is irrelevant, or that the EU law provision in question has already been 
interpreted by the Court of Justice, or that the correct interpretation of EU law is 
so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt; none of these conditions 
are fulfilled in the case at hand. 
The following questions are therefore referred for a preliminary ruling: 
(1) Does Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for 
returning illegally staying third-country nationals and, in particular, Articles 3, 6, 
8, 15 and 16 thereof, preclude the application of national legislation (Article 3(2) 
of Law No 14 of 21 February 2024), which allows recipients of detention orders 
endorsed or extended pursuant to Article 14 of Legislative Decree 286 of 1998 to 
be taken to the areas referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol between the 
Government of the Republic of Italy and the Council of Ministers of the Republic 
of Albania on the strengthening of cooperation in the field of migration, 
concluded in Rome on 6 November 2023, in the absence of any predetermined 
and identifiable prospect of return? 
(2) If the answer to that question is in the negative, does Article 9(1) of Directive 
2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on 
common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection 
preclude the application of national legislation (Law No 14 of 21 February 2024) 
which allows, on the grounds of an application for protection deemed to have been 
lodged for improper purposes, the detention in one of the areas referred to in 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2025 – CASE C-414/25 
 
22  
Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol between the Government of the Italian Republic 
and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania on the strengthening of 
cooperation in the field of migration, concluded in Rome on 6 November 2023, of 
the migrant who is the subject of an expulsion order and who, having been 
brought to said areas, has submitted such an application? 
5. The reasons for the request for urgent procedure under Rule 107 of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Whereas the urgency procedure under Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure 
applies to the areas covered by Title V of Part Three TFEU, which include 
(Chapter 2) policies relating to border controls, asylum and immigration, it is 
emphasised, in support of the request, that proceedings involving the personal 
liberty of migrants are at issue and that they present features of extreme delicacy 
and urgency for the management of the procedures because of the need to balance 
fundamental rights of persons with the national needs for managing migration 
flows. 
… [suspension, instructions to the secretariat, repetition of the questions already 
referred in paragraph 4] 
Thus decided on 29 May 2025. 
… [signatures]