Order — ECLI:EU:C:2024:1012
Date: 2024-11-29
Language of the case: Italian

Summary C-758/24 – 1 
Case C-758/24 [Alace] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
4 November 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
31 October 2024 
Applicant: 
LC 
Defendant: 
Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione 
Internazionale di Roma – Sezione procedure alla frontiera II 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action brought by a Bangladeshi national, before the Tribunale ordinario di Roma 
(District Court, Rome, Italy) for annulment of the decision of the Commissione 
Territoriale per il Riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale di Roma – 
Sezione procedure alla frontiera II (the Rome Regional Commission for the grant 
of international protection, Border Procedures Office II, ‘the Rome Regional 
Commission’) rejecting that individual’s application for international protection. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The request for a preliminary ruling, made under Article 267 TFEU by the District 
Court, Rome, concerns the interpretation of Articles 36, 37 and 38 of Directive 
2013/32/EU, and of Annex I to that directive, in relation to the decision to include 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-758/24 
 
2  
Bangladesh in the national list of safe countries of origin, with regard to various 
aspects. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
(1) Does EU law, and in particular Articles 36, 37 and 38 of Directive 
2013/32/EU, read also in conjunction with recitals 42, 46 and 48 of that directive, 
and interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union (and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on 
Human Rights (ECHR)), preclude a national legislature, which has the authority 
to consent to the drawing up of lists of safe countries of origin and to prescribe the 
criteria to be applied and the sources to be used for that purpose, from also 
directly designating a third country as a safe country of origin, by a legislative act 
of primary law? 
(2) In any event, does EU law, and in particular Articles 36, 37 and 38 of 
Directive 2013/32, read also in conjunction with recitals 42, 46 and 48 of that 
directive, and interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union (and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR), preclude, at 
the very least, the legislature from designating a third country as a safe country of 
origin without making the sources used to justify that designation accessible and 
verifiable, thus preventing an asylum seeker from challenging, and the court from 
reviewing, the origin, authoritativeness, reliability, relevance, topicality, 
completeness and, in any event, the content in general of those sources, and from 
making their own assessments as to whether the substantive conditions for such a 
designation, laid down in Annex I to the directive, are satisfied? 
(3) Should EU law, and in particular Articles 36, 37 and 38 of Directive 
2013/32, read also in conjunction with recitals 42, 46 and 48 of that directive, and 
interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union (and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR), be interpreted as meaning 
that, in the course of an accelerated border procedure [for persons from] a country 
of origin designated as safe, the courts may in any event use information on the 
country of origin drawn independently from the sources referred to in 
Article 37(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which can be used to establish whether the 
substantive conditions for such a designation, laid down in Annex I to that 
directive, are satisfied? 
(4) Does EU law, and in particular Articles 36, 37 and 38 of Directive 2013/32, 
read also in conjunction with recitals 42, 46 and 48 of that directive, and 
interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union (and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR), preclude a third country 
from being designated as a ‘safe country of origin’ where there are categories of 
persons in that country for whom it does not meet the substantive conditions for 
such a designation laid down in Annex I to that directive? 
ALACE 
 
3 
Provisions of international law relied on 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms, Article 6 – Right to a fair trial, and Article 13 – Right to an effective 
remedy. 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 47 
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, recitals 42, 46 and 48, Articles 3(1), 31(8), 36, 37 and 46(1), (3), (4), 
(5) and (6), and Annex I. 
Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on 
procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, 
Article 30. 
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 and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU, Article 61. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 October 2024, Case C-406/22, CV v 
Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Italian Constitution, Articles 10(3), 24 and 113. 
Decreto legislativo 28 gennaio 2008, n. 25 – Attuazione della direttiva 
2005/85/CE recante norme minime per le procedure applicate negli Stati 
membri ai fini del riconoscimento e della revoca dello status di rifugiato 
(Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008 implementing Council Directive 
2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in 
Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status), the following 
articles: 
Article 2-bis (wording prior to the amendment resulting from decreto-legge 
23 ottobre 2024, n. 158 (Decree-Law No 158 of 23 October 2024)):  
‘1. By decree of the Ministro degli affari esteri e della cooperazione 
internazionale (Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation), in 
agreement with the Ministri dell’interno e della giustizia (Ministers for the Interior 
and for Justice), the list of safe countries of origin shall be adopted on the basis of 
the criteria laid down in paragraph 2. The list of safe countries of origin shall be 
updated regularly and shall be notified to the European Commission. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-758/24 
 
4  
2. A non-EU state can be considered a safe country of origin where, on the 
basis of its legal system, the application of the law within a democratic system and 
the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and 
consistently no persecution as defined in Article 7 of Legislative Decree No 251 
of 19 November 2007, no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or 
punishment and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of 
international or internal armed conflict. A country can be designated as a safe 
country of origin with the exception of parts of its territory or categories of 
persons. 
3. For the purposes of the assessment referred to in paragraph 2, account shall 
be taken, inter alia, of the extent to which protection is provided against 
persecution or serious harm by: 
(a) the relevant laws and regulations of the country and the manner in which 
they are applied; 
(b) observance of the rights and freedoms laid down in the European 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 
4 November 1950, ratified in accordance with legge 4 agosto 1955, n. 848 (Law 
No 848 of 4 August 1955), the International Covenant for Civil and Political 
Rights, opened for signature on 19 December 1966, ratified in accordance with 
legge 25 ottobre 1977, n. 881 (Law No 881 of 25 October 1977), and the United 
Nations Convention against Torture of 10 December 1984, in particular the rights 
from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the said European 
Convention; 
(c) observance of the principle laid down in Article 33 of the Geneva 
Convention; 
(d) provision for a system of effective remedies against violations of those 
rights and freedoms. 
4. The assessment as to whether a non-EU State is a safe country of origin is 
based on information provided by the Commissione nazionale per il diritto di asilo 
(National Commission on the Right to Asylum), which also makes use of 
information compiled by the documentation centre referred to in Article 5(1), as 
well as other sources of information, including in particular information from 
other European Union Member States, the EUAA, the UNHCR, the Council of 
Europe and other relevant international organisations. 
5. A country designated as a safe country of origin in accordance with this 
article can only be considered as a safe country of origin for the applicant if he or 
she is a national of that country or is a stateless person who was formerly 
habitually resident in that country and has not invoked serious grounds to believe 
that the country is not safe due to that individual’s particular situation.’ 
ALACE 
 
5 
Article 9(2-bis): ‘The decision rejecting the application made by the applicant as 
referred to in Article 2-bis(5) shall state the reasons exclusively by stating that the 
applicant has not demonstrated the existence of serious grounds for considering 
the designated safe country of origin to be unsafe in relation to the applicant’s 
particular circumstances.’ 
Article 28-bis(2): ‘The Police Headquarters shall transmit the necessary 
documentation without delay to the Regional Commission, which, within seven 
days from the date of receipt of the documentation, shall conduct the hearing and 
reach a decision within the following two days, in the following cases: … 
(c) applicant from a designated safe country of origin within the meaning of 
Article 2-bis.’ 
Article 28-ter(1): ‘The application shall be deemed to be manifestly unfounded, 
within the meaning of Article 32(1)(b-bis), where one of the following conditions 
is met: … 
(b) the applicant is from a designated safe country of origin within the meaning 
of Article 2-bis.’ 
Article 32: 
‘1. Subject to the provisions of Articles 23, 29 and 30, the Regional 
Commission shall take one of the following decisions: 
(a) it shall recognise refugee or subsidiary protection status, in accordance with 
Articles 11 and 17 of decreto legislativo 19 novembre 2007, n. 251 (Legislative 
Decree No 251 of 19 November 2007); 
… 
(b-bis) it shall reject the application as manifestly unfounded in the cases referred 
to in Article 28-ter; 
(b-ter) it shall reject the application if, in a part of the country of origin, the 
applicant has no well-founded fear of being persecuted or is not at real risk of 
suffering serious harm, or has access to protection against persecution or serious 
harm, and can safely and legally travel to and gain admittance to that part of the 
country and can reasonably be expected to settle there.’ 
Article 35-bis (wording prior to the amendment resulting from decreto-legge 
23 ottobre 2024, n. 158 (Decree-Law No 158 of 23 October 2024)):  
‘… 2. To be admissible, the appeal shall be brought within thirty days of 
notification of the decision … 
In the cases referred to in Article 28-bis(1) and (2) … the time limits laid down in 
this paragraph shall be reduced by half. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-758/24 
 
6  
3. Appeals have suspensive effect, except when brought: … 
(c) against a decision rejecting the application as manifestly unfounded under 
Article 32(1)(b-bis); 
(d) against a measure adopted against the persons referred to in 
Article 28-bis(2)(b), (b-bis), (c) and (e); … 
4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (d-bis), the 
enforceability of the contested measure may, however, be suspended where 
serious and detailed reasons … are invoked by reasoned order … issued within 
five days after the application for suspension has been filed and without prior 
notice to the other party. The order granting or refusing the suspension of the 
contested measure shall be notified … with the application for suspension. … An 
order issued under this paragraph shall not be subject to appeal. In the cases 
referred to in paragraph 3(b), (c) and (d), when the application for suspension is 
granted, the applicant shall be issued a residence permit for asylum application.’ 
Article 35-ter 
‘1. Where the applicant is detained in accordance with Article 6-bis of decreto 
legislativo 18 agosto 2015, n. 142 (Legislative Decree No 142 of 18 August 
2015), an appeal against the decision of the Regional Commission is permitted 
within the time limit indicated in Article 35-bis(2-ter). The lodging of an appeal or 
an application for suspension shall not suspend the enforceability of the contested 
measure. 
To be admissible, the application for suspension of the enforceability of the 
contested measure must be lodged with the application initiating proceedings. 
2. The appeal shall be notified immediately by the court registry to the 
Ministry of the Interior at the Regional Commission or office that adopted the 
contested act and to the public prosecutor, who may file a statement of defence 
within the following two days. Within the same time limit, the Regional 
Commission that adopted the contested act shall be required to make available the 
transcript of the hearing or, where possible, the transcript of the video recording, 
as well as a copy of the application for international protection and all the 
documentation acquired during the examination procedure. On expiry of that time 
limit, the single judge shall decide on the case within five days in the form of a 
reasoned order that shall not be subject to appeal. 
3. From the moment the application is made and until the measure provided for 
in the last sentence of paragraph 2 has been adopted, the applicant may not be 
expelled or removed from the place where he is being held. 
4. When the application for suspension is granted, the applicant shall be 
permitted to enter Italian territory and shall be issued a residence permit for 
asylum application. A suspension of the effects of the contested measure ordered 
ALACE 
 
7 
under paragraph 3 above shall cease to have effect if the appeal is rejected, even 
by an order that is not final. 
5. On expiry of the time limit referred to in the last sentence of paragraph 2 
above, the court, sitting as a chamber, shall proceed in accordance with Article 35-
bis(7) et seq, in so far as compatible.’ 
Legislative Decree No 142 of 18 August 2015 
Article 6-bis (Detention of a foreign national during completion of the border 
clearance procedure in accordance with Article 28-bis of Legislative Decree 
No 25 of 28 January 2008), in the text currently in force. 
‘Article 6-bis 
1. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6(2) and (3-bis) of the present 
decree and in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 14(1)(1) of decreto 
legislativo 25 luglio 1998, n. 286 (Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998), 
the applicant may be detained for the duration of the border procedure referred to 
in Article 28-bis(2)(b) and (b-bis) of Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 
2008, and until the decision is made on the application for suspension (under 
Article 35-ter) of the same legislative decree, for the sole purpose of ascertaining 
whether he or she has the right to enter the territory of the State. 
2. Detention under paragraph 1 may be ordered if the applicant has not handed 
over his or her valid passport or other equivalent document or does not provide an 
appropriate financial guarantee, or pending completion of the procedure 
concerning the provision of the financial guarantee. Within ninety days from the 
date of entry into force of this provision, by decree of the Ministry of the Interior, 
in agreement with the Ministries of Justice and Economy and Finance, the amount 
of that financial guarantee and the detailed rules for providing it shall be 
identified. 
2-bis. An applicant who is not detained in accordance with paragraph 1 shall, in 
any case, be subject to the border procedure referred to in Article 28-bis(2-bis) of 
Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008 and, in the event of an appeal, 
Article 35-ter of that decree. Such applicants shall be issued with the personal 
certificate referred to in Article 4(2). 
3. Detention may not be extended beyond the time strictly necessary to carry 
out the border procedure within the meaning of Article 28-bis of Legislative 
Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008. Validation [of the detention order] shall result 
in detention in the facility for a maximum, non-extendable, period of four weeks. 
4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the applicant shall be detained in 
appropriate premises in the facilities referred to in Article 10-ter(1) of Legislative 
Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998, or, in the case of a large number of arrivals in a 
short time, in the facilities referred to in Article 14 of that Legislative Decree 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-758/24 
 
8  
No 286 of 25 July 1998, located near the border or transit zone, for the time 
strictly necessary to establish the right to enter the territory of the State. 
Article 6(5) shall apply mutatis mutandis’. 
Decreto Interministeriale del 7 maggio 2024 – Aggiornamento della lista dei 
Paesi di origine sicuri prevista dall’articolo 2-bis del [decreto legislativo n. 
25/2008] (Interministerial Decree of 7 May 2024 – Update to the list of safe 
countries of origin provided for in Article 2-bis of [Legislative Decree 
No 25/2008].) 
‘… Having regard to Memo No 1311_06/05/2024,0056895-I of the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation …  
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, in agreement with 
the Minister for the Interior and the Minister for Justice … decrees as follows: … 
Article 1 – Safe countries of origin 
1. In accordance with Article 2-bis of Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 
2008, safe countries of origin are: Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gambia, 
Georgia, Ghana, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Morocco, Montenegro, Nigeria, Peru, 
Senegal, Serbia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia. 
2. When examining applications for international protection, the applicant’s 
particular situation shall be assessed in the light of the information contained in 
the country-of-origin records indicated in the investigation referred to above.’ 
Article 2 – Regular updates 
1. The list referred to in [Article] 1 shall be updated regularly in accordance 
with Article 2-bis of Legislative Decree No 25 of 2008. 
Article 3 – Notifications 
1. The list referred to in [Article] 1 shall be notified to the European 
Commission. The European Commission shall also be notified of any changes 
made … as a result of regular updates …’ 
Decree-Law No 158 of 23 October 2024 
‘… HAVING REGARD TO the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union of 4 October 2024 (Case C-406/22), which holds that Article 37 of 
Directive 2013/32/EU must be interpreted as precluding a third country from 
being designated as a safe country of origin where certain parts of its territory do 
not satisfy the material conditions for such designation, set out in Annex I to that 
directive; 
ALACE 
 
9 
IN VIEW OF the extraordinary and urgent need to designate safe countries of 
origin, taking into account the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union of 4 October 2024 (Case C-406/22), excluding countries in which the 
conditions are not met for certain parts of their territory (Cameroon, Colombia and 
Nigeria); 
HAVING REGARD TO 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 and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU and, in 
particular, Article 61(2) of that regulation, according to which ‘the designation of 
a third country as a safe country of origin both at Union and national level may be 
made with exceptions for specific parts of its territory or clearly identifiable 
categories of persons’, which, although taking effect from 12 June 2026 onwards, 
has indicated the shared position of the Member States of the European Union; 
… 
[Article] 1 (Safe countries of origin) 
1. Article 2-bis of Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008 is hereby 
amended as follows: 
(a) Paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: “1. In application of the 
qualification criteria established by EU legislation and the evidence obtained from 
the information sources provided by the relevant international organisations, the 
following are considered to be safe countries of origin: Albania, Algeria, 
Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gambia, 
Georgia, Ghana, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Morocco, Montenegro, Peru, 
Senegal, Serbia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.”; 
(b) in the second sentence of paragraph 2, the words “of parts of the territory or” 
are deleted; 
… 
(d) after paragraph 4, the following is inserted: “4-bis. The list of safe countries 
of origin shall be updated regularly by means of an instrument having the force of 
law and shall be notified to the European Commission. For the purpose of 
updating the list referred to in paragraph 1, the Consiglio dei Ministri (Council of 
Ministers) shall approve a report – prepared by 15 January of each year and in line 
with the overriding requirements for security and continuity of international 
relations, and taking into account the information referred to in paragraph 4 – in 
which it shall report on the situation of the countries included in the current list 
and of those whose inclusion on that list it intends to promote. The Government 
shall send the report to the competent parliamentary committees.” 
[Article] 2 (Amendments to Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008) 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-758/24 
 
10  
1. Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008 is amended as follows: 
(a) in Article 35-bis: 
(1) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: 
“4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 3, the enforceability of the contested 
measure may be suspended, at the request of a party, by reasoned order, where 
serious and detailed reasons exist [for such a suspension]. To be admissible, the 
request for suspension must be lodged with the application initiating proceedings. 
The application shall be notified by the court registry in the manner laid down in 
paragraph 6. The Ministry of the Interior may file a statement of defence within 
three days of notification of the application. If the Ministry files a statement of 
defence, the applicant may file a statement of reply within the following three 
days. The court shall decide on the application for suspension within the following 
five days. If the Ministry of the Interior does not file a statement of defence as 
permitted by the fourth sentence, the time limit for the court’s decision shall run 
from the expiry of the time limit for filing of that statement of defence. In the 
cases referred to in paragraph 3(b), (c) and (d), when the application for 
suspension is granted, the applicant shall be issued a residence permit for asylum 
application.” 
(2) after paragraph 4, the following is inserted: 
“4-bis. A complaint against the order referred to in paragraph 4 may be lodged 
with the appeal court within five days following the date on which the order is 
notified by the court registry. The order must also be notified to the party that is 
not party to the proceedings. Articles 737 and 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure 
shall apply. The complaint shall be notified to the opposing party by the court 
registry. The lodging of a complaint shall not suspend the enforceability of the 
contested measure. After hearing the parties, the appeal court shall deliver its 
decision in the form of an immediately enforceable order, within ten days 
following the lodging of the complaint. …” 
[Article] 3 (Entry into force) 
1. This decree shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the 
Official Gazette of the Italian Republic and shall be submitted to Parliament for 
conversion into law.’ 
Legge 21 febbraio 2024. n. 14 – Ratifica ed esecuzione del Protocollo tra il 
Governo della Repubblica italiana e il Consiglio dei ministri della 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 No 14 of 21 February 2024 – Ratification and 
implementation of the Protocol between the Government of the Italian 
Republic and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania for the 
ALACE 
 
11 
strengthening of cooperation in matters of migration, concluded in Rome on 
6 November 2023, and rules for coordination with the internal system) 
‘… 
Article 3 – Coordination provisions 
… 
2. In the areas referred to in Article 1(7)(c) of the Protocol, only persons 
embarked on vessels of the Italian authorities may be taken outside the territorial 
waters of the Italian Republic or of other Member States of the European Union, 
including following rescue operations. 
3. For the purpose of implementing the Protocol, the areas referred to in 
Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol shall be treated in the same way as the border or 
transit zones identified by the decree of the Minister for the Interior adopted in 
accordance with Article 28-bis(4) of Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 
2008. 
4. … 
5. Persons detained in the areas referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol 
shall be issued with the personal certificates referred to in … Legislative Decree 
No 142 of 18 August 2015. Each certificate shall contain the unique identity code 
assigned as a result of the photo-identification activities carried out, the holder’s 
photograph and the personal details declared by the applicant. The document 
referred to in the previous sentence certifies the applicant’s status as an applicant 
for international protection, attests to the identity declared by the person 
concerned and enables the holder to be recognised … In exceptional cases, when 
ordered by the Italian official referred to in Article 5(1), a foreign national subject 
to the procedures referred to in Article 4(1) of this law, even if detained in the 
areas referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol, may be transferred to facilities 
located in Italian territory. Implementation of a transfer as stipulated in this 
paragraph shall not affect the basis for detention and, in any event, shall not affect 
the procedure to which the foreign national is subject. 
…’ 
‘Article 4 – Jurisdiction and applicable law 
1. The consolidated law referred to in Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 
1998, Legislative Decree No 251 of 19 November 2007, Legislative Decree No 25 
of 28 January 2008, Legislative Decree No 142 of 18 August 2015, and the Italian 
and EU provisions concerning the requirements and procedures relating to the 
admission and residence of foreign nationals in Italian territory shall apply, in so 
far as they are compatible, to the migrants referred to in Article 1(1)(d) of the 
Protocol. The procedures envisaged by the texts indicated in the first sentence 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-758/24 
 
12  
shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, and the specialised section 
on immigration, international protection and free movement of citizens of the 
European Union of the District Court, Rome and the office of the giudice di pace 
di Roma (Magistrate of Rome, Italy) shall have exclusive jurisdiction. In the cases 
referred to in this paragraph, Italian law shall apply. 
2. A foreign national subject to the procedures referred to in paragraph 1 shall 
issue a special power of attorney to his or her lawyer by signing a non-electronic 
document. The special power of attorney shall be transmitted by electronic means 
of communication … 
3. The Italian official referred to in Article 5(1) shall take the necessary steps 
to ensure the full and timely exercise of the right of defence of a foreign national 
subject to the procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article. The certified 
email address or other qualified certified electronic delivery service made 
available by the abovementioned official shall be used for the transmission and 
receipt of documents required to exercise that right of defence. The right to confer 
with legal counsel shall be exercised – using audiovisual systems that ensure 
confidentiality – by means of a remote connection between the place where the 
foreign national is located and the place where legal counsel is located. 
4. Appeals against decisions of the Regional Commission … shall be lodged 
within the time limit laid down in Article 35-ter of Legislative Decree No 25 of 
28 January 2008. 
5. The migrant’s legal counsel … shall attend the hearing in the courtroom 
where the judge is sitting, with a remote audiovisual connection to the migrant’s 
location. Solely in cases where remote connection is not possible and 
postponement of the hearing is not compatible with compliance with the time 
limits for the proceedings, legal counsel for migrants eligible for legal aid 
travelling to the areas referred to in Article 1(1)(c) of the Protocol for the purpose 
of performing the necessary tasks and interpreters shall be reimbursed for their 
travel and subsistence expenses. … 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The Italy-Albania Protocol, ratified by the Law of 21 February 2024, provides that 
the Albanian Government is to make available to Italy areas of its territory for the 
construction of a Detention and Return Centre (DRC) subject entirely to the 
jurisdiction of Italy and treated as border areas or transit zones for the purposes of 
administrative procedures concerning migration. Applicants for international 
protection, collected from extra-territorial waters by the Italian authorities’ ships, 
to whom the accelerated border procedure reserved for persons coming from 
countries designated as safe countries of origin applies, may be detained in those 
areas. In application of that protocol, LC, a Bangladeshi citizen who arrived in 
Italy illegally, was first taken to Albania where he applied for international 
protection on 16 October 2024 and where his case was heard remotely. His 
ALACE 
 
13 
application, which was processed under the accelerated border procedure for 
persons from safe countries in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 
2013/32/EU, was rejected as manifestly unfounded by the Rome Regional 
Commission, by rejection decision of 17 October 2024, on the ground that he 
came from a safe country of origin. 
2 LC was at the same time issued with a detention order, which was not validated by 
the District Court, Rome, and is currently in Italy. 
3 On 24 October 2024, he filed an appeal before the District Court, Rome against 
the abovementioned decision of 17 October 2024 by the Rome Regional 
Commission refusing international protection. The applicant also requested that 
the enforceability of the contested measure be suspended. 
4 Although the appeal was lodged under Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 
No 25/2008, the District Court, Rome considers that it must instead apply 
Article 35-ter of that legislative decree, by virtue of the provisions of Article 6-
bis(2-bis) introduced by decreto-legge 11 ottobre 2024, n. 145 (Decree-Law 
No 145 of 11 October 2024), in view of the circumstance that the applicant was 
the recipient of an accelerated border procedure for persons from safe countries of 
origin, carried out remotely while he was detained in Albania. 
5 The inclusion of a given State on the list of safe countries of origin – in this case 
Bangladesh – was in fact the precondition enabling the applicant to be subject to 
the special accelerated procedure. Compared to the standard procedure, this 
accelerated procedure is characterised, first of all, by a reduction in the time limits 
for appeals and by a derogation from the automatic suspensive effect resulting 
from an appeal against an administrative decision to refuse international 
protection. Moreover, during this accelerated procedure, the applicant may be 
detained in special areas set up in border areas or transit zones, which, by virtue of 
the Italy-Albania Protocol, include certain facilities that are set up in Albanian 
territory but subject to Italian jurisdiction. Such detention may not exceed four 
weeks and is limited to the completion of proceedings to establish the legitimacy 
of the application for international protection. If the detention order is not 
validated within 48 hours of its transmission to the judicial authority, it ceases to 
have effect and the asylum seeker is released, as was the case with LC (see 
paragraph 2 above). 
6 In this context, the District Court, Rome is required, first of all, to rule on the 
request – submitted by LC together with the appeal against the contested decision 
refusing international protection – that the effects of that enforceable decision be 
suspended. 
7 In order to rule on this request, the District Court, Rome must assess whether the 
inclusion of Bangladesh in the national list of safe countries of origin (that 
inclusion, as mentioned above, having constituted the necessary precondition for 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-758/24 
 
14  
applying the special accelerated procedure to LC’s case) complies with the criteria 
laid down in Directive 2013/32. 
8 In order to be able to make that assessment, the referring court considers that it is 
necessary for the Court of Justice to clarify, by way of a preliminary ruling, the 
compatibility – with EU law – of the national rules in force concerning the 
designation of safe countries of origin with regard to various aspects: in particular, 
(i) the question of whether that decision is a matter for the administrative authority 
alone or also for the legislature, (ii) the content of the procedural safeguards 
intended to ensure that the sources used for the purposes of that decision are 
accessible and verifiable, such as to enable the persons concerned and the judicial 
authorities to assess their reliability, (iii) the scope of the investigative activities 
carried out by the judicial authorities in respect of the situation in the country 
concerned, and (iv) the possibility of a country being designated as safe if it does 
not meet the safety requirements only for certain categories of persons. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
9 In terms of the first question, the District Court, Rome notes that the procedure 
used to designate safe countries of origin involves two distinct levels. 
10 At an initial level, the legislature, in Article 2-bis of Legislative Decree 
No 25/2008 – a primary source of legislation having the force of law and subject 
only to the Italian Constitution and EU law –establishes, in implementation of the 
power granted to Member States by Article 37 of Directive 2013/32/EU, that these 
countries are to be determined by interministerial decree (adopted by the Minister 
for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation in conjunction with the Minister 
for the Interior and the Minister for Justice). In that same article, the legislature 
lays down the method to be followed, the sources of information to be used and 
the factors to be assessed for the purpose of designating a country as safe, 
according to criteria that comply with the requirements of the directive, and in 
particular with Annex I to that directive, which is essentially reproduced in this 
national provision. 
11 At a second level, hierarchically below the first, there is the interministerial 
decree, operating as the implementing instrument for the designation of safe 
countries of origin, in accordance with the criteria indicated by the legislature. 
Since this is an administrative instrument, its lawfulness can be reviewed by the 
ordinary courts, where necessary of their own motion. 
12 Within this regulatory framework, an interministerial decree of 7 May 2024 drew 
up a list of safe countries of origin, established as such on the basis of fact sheets 
for each, which were referred to in the decree but not physically attached to it. 
13 However, the Italian Government implicitly repealed the abovementioned 
interministerial decree and replaced it with a new list (most recently, by means of 
the Decree-Law of 23 October 2024 – an act having the force of law), formulated 
ALACE 
 
15 
taking express account of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-406/22, 
which held that ‘Article 37 of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as precluding 
a third country from being designated as a safe country of origin where certain 
parts of its territory do not satisfy the material conditions for such designation, set 
out in Annex I to that directive’. Therefore, the new list of safe countries no 
longer includes Cameroon, Colombia and Nigeria, due to the presence of 
geographical areas with conflicts that could expose the population to 
indiscriminate violence, while it continues to include Bangladesh as a safe country 
of origin. 
14 In so doing, the Italian Government has subverted the two-tier structure of the 
procedure for designating safe countries of origin, entrusting – to the legislature 
alone and to acts having the force of law – both the general rules governing the 
procedures and criteria for such designation, and the designation itself, with the 
consequence that this designation is not only able to derogate from the general 
rules, being of equal legislative standing, but is also removed from the system of 
judicial review by the ordinary courts. 
15 In that context, the referring court is first asking the Court of Justice whether EU 
law precludes the designation of safe countries of origin from being entrusted to a 
primary legislative act having the force of law. 
16 In respect of the second question, the District Court, Rome observes that 
Decree-Law No 158/2024 inserted a paragraph 4-bis into Article 2-bis of 
Legislative Decree No 25/2008 stipulating that the Government will ensure that 
the list of safe countries of origin is updated regularly by means of a new 
instrument having the force of law, by drafting a report providing information to 
the competent parliamentary committees on the situation of the countries included 
in the current list and those whose inclusion on that list it intends to promote. 
However, it is not specified whether applicants for international protection or the 
courts will be able to have access to this report. 
17 Moreover, with regard to the new list of safe countries laid down in Decree-Law 
No 158/2004, it is not clear whether this is based on the fact sheets already serving 
as the basis for the interministerial decree repealed by that text or on additional 
sources. Consequently, neither LC nor the District Court, Rome is in a position to 
know the information on which the current list is based or to assess the reliability 
of that information, and that list, like its predecessor, continues to classify LC’s 
country of origin, Bangladesh, as a safe country. 
18 The District Court believes that this represents a significant limitation of the 
principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, hampering, first, the applicant’s 
defence and, second, the examination that the courts must carry out for the 
purpose of giving judgment. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-758/24 
 
16  
19 Accordingly, the referring court is asking the Court of Justice to clarify whether 
EU law precludes a situation where – when designating a safe country of origin – 
a national legislature fails to make the method, sources of information and 
assessment criteria it has used for that process accessible to the persons 
concerned. 
20 With regard to the third question, the District Court, Rome observes that, 
irrespective of the answer to the second question, there is a need for the Court of 
Justice to clarify the nature and scope of the powers vested in the courts as regards 
the assessment of whether it is appropriate to designate a third country as safe, 
again with a view to safeguarding access to effective judicial protection. 
21 In particular, the question arises as to whether the courts are able to rely on 
qualified information sources in order to assess whether that designation as a safe 
country of origin is appropriate, both in the case where the designation instrument 
indicates the sources and information on which it is based – which the courts can 
then compare with their own sources – and in the case where the information on 
which the designation is based is unknown. 
22 With regard to the fourth question, the District Court, Rome notes that, in its 
original wording, the second paragraph of Article 2-bis of Legislative Decree 
No 25/2008 stipulated that a country can be designated as a safe country of origin 
‘with the exception of parts of its territory or categories of persons’. 
23 However, Decree-Law No 158/2024, which was adopted – as noted in 
paragraph 13 above – in implementation of the Court of Justice’s judgment in case 
C-406/22, removed the words ‘parts of its territory or’ from that provision, so that 
a country can currently be designated as a safe country of origin ‘with the 
exception of categories of persons’. The Court of Justice, in fact, did not rule in 
the judgment cited on the possibility of declaring a country safe ‘with the 
exception of categories of persons’, because this aspect was not the subject of that 
case. 
24 According to the District Court, Rome, however, based on the Court of Justice’s 
overall reasoning in that judgment, the principle it laid down for parts of the 
territory should also apply to categories of persons, so that a country cannot be 
declared safe if it is not safe for groups of individuals, even minorities, regardless 
of whether they are at risk because of the area in which they live or because of the 
category of persons to which they belong, especially since, in practice, if those 
groups are scattered throughout the territory of that State, it would appear even 
more unreasonable to declare it safe. 
25 The compatibility of such a safe-country designation with EU law, and in 
particular with Articles 36 and 37 of Directive 2013/32 and Annex I to that 
directive, depends on whether it is possible to show ‘that there is generally and 
consistently no persecution as defined in Article 9 of Directive 2011/95/EU’ and 
no real risk of serious harm, such as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or 
ALACE 
 
17 
punishment, or threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of 
international or internal armed conflict, within the meaning of that Annex I. This 
was recently affirmed by the Court of Justice itself in the abovementioned 
judgment in Case C-406/22, in particular at paragraphs 68 and 69, referred to in 
this respect by the District Court, Rome. 
26 In any event, according to the referring court, that question does not affect the 
provision of Article 36 of Directive 2013/32, which nevertheless permits 
international protection to be granted to any person – even if he or she comes from 
a country of origin declared to be safe – who puts forward serious grounds for 
considering the country not to be a safe country of origin ‘in his or her particular 
circumstances’. 
27 In this context, by its fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling, the District 
Court, Rome is asking the Court of Justice to clarify the scope of its judgment of 
4 October 2024 in Case C-406/22 concerning the possibility of declaring a country 
to be a safe country of origin with exceptions not only in relation to parts of its 
territory but also for categories of persons. 
The request for application of the urgent procedure or the expedited procedure  
28 The District Court, Rome is requesting that the Court of Justice apply the urgent 
procedure under Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, or, 
in the alternative, the expedited procedure under Article 105 of those rules. 
29 The referring court submits that, pending a decision by the Court of Justice 
allowing it to rule on the appeal before it against the enforceable refusal of 
international protection, the appellant LC, although not in custody, does not have 
a legitimate basis for remaining legally in Italian territory and therefore continues 
to be exposed to [the risk of] expulsion or detention orders. Moreover, he is not 
able to register with the national health service, enter into employment contracts 
or attend language or training courses. 
30 The interpretation of the concept of ‘safe country of origin’ is also of great 
importance and a matter of urgency, since it results in the application of 
accelerated and simplified procedural methods that, as we have seen, restrict the 
rights of many applicants for international protection. 
31 Finally, an urgent ruling by the Court of Justice could help resolve the serious 
institutional conflict currently taking place in Italy, which, in the absence of 
rulings on its legitimacy or constitutionality, has led to a substantial limitation of 
the operation of the Italy-Albania Protocol, as a result of the decisions of several 
Italian courts not to validate detention orders in accelerated border procedures. 
However, some Italian courts are not applying this line of interpretation, such as 
the Tribunale di Firenze (District Court, Florence, Italy) in its order of 10 January 
2024, which generates further uncertainty.