Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:997
Date: 2025-12-18
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-184/24 – 1 
Case C-184/24 [Sidi Bouzid] 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: 
7 March 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
5 March 2024 
Applicant: 
AF, in his own name and as person exercising parental 
responsibility over the child BF 
Defendant: 
Ministero dell’Interno – U.T.G. – Prefettura di Milano  
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action for annulment of the decision ordering the withdrawal of reception 
measures in relation to AF and BF. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation, under Article 267 TFEU, of Article 20 of Directive 2013/33/EU. In 
particular, it is necessary to determine whether that provision precludes national 
legislation which allows for the withdrawal of reception measures where the 
related conditions for granting those measures are no longer met – in particular, 
because the applicant for international protection refuses the transfer to a different 
accommodation centre – and there is a risk that, following that withdrawal, his 
basic needs can no longer be covered. 
 
i The name of the present case is fictitious. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-184/24 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Does Article 20 of Directive [2013/33/EU] and the principles set out by the Court 
of Justice in its judgments of 12 November 2019 in Case C-233/[18] and 1 August 
2022 in Case C-422/[21] – in so far as they preclude the administrative authority 
of the Member State from ordering, as a sanction, the withdrawal of reception 
measures where that decision would be detrimental to the basic vital needs of the 
foreign national applying for international protection and of his family – preclude 
national legislation which permits, following a reasoned individual assessment, 
relating also to the necessity and proportionality of the measure, withdrawal of 
reception, not for sanctioning reasons, but because the conditions for being 
granted it are no longer met, in particular, on account of the foreign national’s 
refusal, on grounds which do not relate to covering basic vital needs and 
protecting human dignity, to agree to the transfer to another accommodation 
centre, designated by the administrative authority on account of objective 
organisational needs and guaranteeing, under the responsibility of the 
administrative authority itself, that the material reception conditions equivalent to 
those enjoyed at the centre of origin will be maintained, where the refusal to 
transfer and subsequent decision ordering the withdrawal place the foreign 
national in the position of being unable to meet basic needs of personal and family 
life? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
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, in particular recital 25 and Article 20(1)(a) thereof 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 12 November 2019, C-233/18, and 1 August 
2022, C-422/21 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto legislativo n. 142/2015, attuativo delle direttive 2013/32/UE e 
2013/33/UE (Legislative Decree No 142/2015, implementing Directives 
2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU): 
Article 23(1)(a) – implementing Article 20(1)(a) of Directive 2013/33/EU – 
provides for the withdrawal of reception measures where the applicant for 
international protection does not report to the designated facility or abandons the 
accommodation centre, without prior reasoned notification to the competent 
prefettura (prefecture); 
Article 23(2)bis provides that the measures concerned are to be taken individually, 
in accordance with the principle of proportionality and having regard to the 
situation of the applicant, and reasons are to be given. 
SIDI BOUZID 
 
3 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 18 May 2023, the applicant, accommodated together with the child at an 
accommodation centre in Milan, refused (for the third time) to be transferred to 
another accommodation centre, also in Milan, as ordered by the administrative 
authority which manages those centres. Following that refusal, the reception 
measures from which he benefited were withdrawn. 
2 The applicant submitted an application for interim measures, which was initially 
dismissed by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Regional 
Administrative Court, Lombardy) – which considers that the withdrawal ordered 
in the present case is an expression of the organisational power of the 
administrative authority with regard to the management of reception centres – but 
then upheld on appeal by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) – which 
considers that the withdrawal ordered could infringe fundamental human rights 
such as access to food, an abode and clothing, which are basic needs. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
3 The statement of reasons for the withdrawal decision refers to several facts 
relating to the applicant: first, the fact that he, together with the child, occupies 
accommodation intended not for two but for four people; secondly, the violent 
conduct of the applicant. However, the basis for the withdrawal is the applicant’s 
repeated refusal of the transfers ordered by the administrative authority for 
organisational reasons. 
4 The applicant justified the refusal on the basis that the child studies at a place 
close to the current accommodation centre. 
He also claims that, if the measures were withdrawn, he would not be able to meet 
his and the child’s basic vital needs. 
He claims, in particular, that the withdrawal decision does not take into account 
the fact that the applicant and the child belong to the category of ‘vulnerable 
persons’, and complains of an infringement of Article 20 of Directive 2013/33/EU 
as interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgments in Case C-233/18 and Case 
C-422/21, which, although relating to the situation governed by Article 23(1)(e) – 
a provision which has been repealed – expresses a general principle applicable to 
any scenario relating to withdrawal of the measure, even of a non-sanctioning 
nature. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
5 Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 – which follows the approach of 
Article 20 of Directive 2013/33/EU – provides for the reduction of reception 
measures in several cases: serious or repeated infringement, by the applicant for 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-184/24 
 
4  
international protection, of the rules of the facility in which he or she is 
accommodated, including intentional damage to movable or immovable property, 
or seriously violent behaviour. In those situations, the adopted measure is 
sanctioning in nature, because it is the consequence of unlawful conduct. 
6 Withdrawal may be ordered by the administrative authority in different situations, 
where the conditions for being granted the reception measures are no longer met. 
That is the case, under Article 23(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 142/2015, where 
the applicant fails to report to the designated facility or abandons the 
accommodation centre, without prior reasoned notification to the competent 
prefecture. In those situations, withdrawal is not a sanction, but an administrative 
measure, resulting from the fact that the conditions for being granted the reception 
measures are no longer met. 
7 The present case falls within the scope of Article 23(1)(a) of Legislative Decree 
No 142/2015; although the wording of that provision refers to the situation where 
the applicant for international protection fails to report to the facility assigned to 
him or her, or abandons the centre, that provision must also cover, for the same 
reasons and for consistency of the system set up in favour of those applying for 
international protection, the situation in which the foreign national, after having 
been granted the measures, refuses to be transferred to a different accommodation 
centre designated by the administrative authority for management and 
organisational reasons. 
8 The principles referred to were affirmed, initially, by the judgment of the Court of 
Justice in Case C-233/18, in relation to foreign nationals belonging to categories 
of vulnerable persons within the meaning of Article 21 of Directive 2013/33/EU 
and then extended, by the subsequent judgment in Case C-422/21, to any applicant 
for international protection, that is to say, irrespective of whether they belong to 
the categories referred to in Article 21. It follows that withdrawal as a sanction 
may not be ordered where this leads to the foreign national being deprived in 
practice of the ability to provide for his or her most basic needs. 
9 The reasons for the decisions of the Court of Justice and their connection with the 
fundamental principles of the EU legal order, which are intended to protect human 
dignity, may lead to the conclusion that the principles stated by the Court are of 
general application, and are therefore applicable beyond the cases of withdrawal 
as a sanction, which are the subject of the judgments cited, and therefore also to 
withdrawal not as a sanction provided for in Article 23(1)(a) of Legislative Decree 
No 142/2015. 
10 According to that approach, the fact that the conditions for being granted the 
reception measures are no longer met cannot lead to withdrawal where that is to 
the detriment of the person’s most basic needs. 
11 The issue is central to the present case, given that the Council of State, the 
appellate court, overturned the decision on interim measures handed down by the 
SIDI BOUZID 
 
5 
Regional Administrative Court, Lombardy, on the basis that the withdrawal could 
infringe fundamental human rights such as access to food, an abode and clothing, 
which are basic needs. 
12 A recent line of national case-law has developed that approach, by considering, in 
relation to a withdrawal ordered because the applicant abandoned the 
accommodation centre, without prior communication to the prefecture, that the 
principles developed by the Court must also apply to that situation, even though 
the conditions for a sanction are not met. 
13 It has been held (see Decision No 10999 of the Council of State, Section III, of 
15 December 2022) that the withdrawal provided for in that situation by the 
Italian legislature leaves no room for differentiation and takes place as the only 
reaction of the legal order, thus infringing the principle of proportionality, and not 
allowing for the protection of the basic needs of the foreign national who is the 
subject of the measure, thereby conflicting with the need to protect human dignity. 
14 On the basis of those conditions, the case-law cited above precluded the 
application of Article 23(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 142/2015, on the ground 
that it infringed Article 20 of Directive 2013/33/EU. 
15 However, that approach was established before Decree-Law No 20/2023, which, 
in order to bring the national legal order into line with EU law, made the power of 
withdrawal discretionary; that withdrawal must depend on a specific assessment 
of all the relevant factors and is no longer automatic. The non-application of the 
Italian legislation was therefore due to the rigid nature of the withdrawal 
provisions, whereas that rigid nature has now ceased to exist, and with it also the 
reason for the conflict with EU rules. 
16 Under the current legal framework, which allows the principle of proportionality 
to be respected, the application of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 
can therefore no longer be precluded in relation to the aspect mentioned above. 
17 In the present case, the referring court considers that the administrative authority 
gave sufficient reasons for the withdrawal decision. The administrative authority 
did not wish to expel the applicant from the reception system, but only to transfer 
him to another centre, where he would have continued to benefit from full 
protection. The withdrawal of the reception measures is a direct effect of the 
refusal of the foreign national to continue to benefit from those reception 
measures, even if in another place. That ultimately amounts to voluntary 
withdrawal from the reception mechanism, making the case entirely equivalent to 
that of a foreign national who refuses to be included from the outset. 
18 The fact remains, however, that, as a result of the decision at issue, the foreign 
national would be exposed (by his choice) to deprivation of his basic needs. Once 
again, the referring court notes that this is the same deprivation as that which the 
person may incur if he voluntarily refuses to be included in the reception system, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-184/24 
 
6  
the application of which certainly cannot be imposed, but always requires the 
agreement of the person concerned. 
19 At this stage, the general scope that the principles affirmed by the judgments of 
the Court of Justice cited above seem to have leads the referring court to have 
doubts as to the compatibility of Article 23(1)(a) of Legislative Decree 
No 142/2015, in relation only to the part specified above, with Article 20 of 
Directive 2013/33/EU. 
20 It is necessary to determine whether the latter provision precludes national 
legislation which allows for the withdrawal of reception measures where the 
objective conditions for being granted those measures are no longer met and, in 
particular, where the foreign national refuses the transfer to a different 
accommodation centre ordered by the administrative authority for organisational 
reasons, where the withdrawal measure is necessary and proportionate, and is 
taken after a detailed examination of all the circumstances of the case, but exposes 
the foreign national to the risk, even if attributable to his own free decision, that 
his basic needs will no longer be met. 
21 If EU law were to preclude such national legislation, the finding concerning basic 
needs would completely paralyse the power of withdrawal on the ground that the 
conditions for being granted the measure are no longer met, since it is not easy to 
envisage a case in which a person, who benefits from such reception precisely 
because of the difficulties he or she finds himself or herself in, may suddenly find 
accommodation and adequate means of subsistence. 
22 However, while it is the case that the overriding interest in protecting human 
dignity may warrant such a consequence in the event of withdrawals of a 
sanctioning nature taken against a person who retains the entitlement to benefit 
from reception, it is, by contrast, doubtful that the same conclusion would also 
apply in the case of a person who, voluntarily and without appropriate 
justification, chooses to refuse to remain in the reception system (in another 
centre). 
23 Ultimately, there seems to be a risk of abuse of the system which, according to the 
Court of Justice, justifies the withdrawal of reception measures (see judgments in 
Case C-422/21, paragraph 38, and Case C-233/18, paragraph 44). 
24 It should be recalled that, when granting reception measures, it is for the national 
administrative authority to designate the accommodation centre in which to place 
the foreign national who is unable to provide for personal and family life needs 
and who has applied for international protection. The choice is the consequence of 
organisational and managerial assessments which are the responsibility of the 
administrative authority. The organisational power remains within the remit of the 
administrative authority while the measures are being implemented. The 
administrative authority therefore has the power to order the transfer of the 
beneficiaries if there are proven organisational needs. 
SIDI BOUZID 
 
7 
25 In the present case, the administrative authority pointed out that the applicant 
occupied, together with the child, accommodation intended for four people and, 
therefore, suitable for the needs of a larger family. For those reasons, it ordered 
the transfer of the applicant to another centre, also situated in the city of Milan. 
26 That aspect is particularly important, in so far as the Court of Justice (see 
judgment in Case C-233/18, paragraphs 49 and 50) has clarified that ensuring 
access to reception measures falls within the responsibility of the Member States, 
even where they have recourse to private natural or legal persons. 
27 That aspect is complied with in the present case, in so far as the administrative 
authority, after having noted the existence of an objective organisational need for 
the transfer, directly designated a different centre, in the same city, in which the 
applicant, together with the child, could have continued to enjoy the reception 
measures. 
28 Only the applicant’s refusal to agree to the transfer led to the withdrawal of the 
measure, since the condition for being granted that measure was no longer met, 
that is to say, the applicant actually reporting to the centre designated by the 
administrative authority. 
29 The refusal by the applicant is not linked to proven unsuitability of the centre 
subsequently designated by the administrative authority in relation to his living 
needs, but only to the greater proximity of the first centre to the school attended 
by the child; this is an aspect of the issue which, although taken into 
consideration, is not as important as the organisational needs of the centre, given 
that the child will nevertheless be provided with school services, even in the event 
of transfer. 
30 Directive 2013/33/EU provides for the possibility for Member States to react to 
possible abuses of the protection granted by access to reception measures. The 
principle is confirmed in the judgments of the Court of Justice referred to above. 
31 The referring court observes that, in that context, refusal constitutes an abuse of 
the reception measures against which the administrative authority has the power to 
adopt decisions to overcome that situation, in accordance with the principles laid 
down in the abovementioned decisions of the Court of Justice. 
32 Withdrawal in the present case is the only measure which the administrative 
authority may adopt to tackle abuse, in so far as it is not possible to reduce 
reception, or to adopt other less restrictive measures, given that the reason for the 
transfer is determined by objective organisational needs linked to the use by the 
applicant and the child of accommodation intended for a family of four, not two, 
people, and that no other accommodation is available at the centre. 
33 If it were to be considered that, in the situation at issue, Article 20 of Directive 
2013/33/EU precludes the exercise of the power of withdrawal, the management 
of the accommodation centres would no longer, in practice, be at the disposal of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-184/24 
 
8  
the administrative authority, in so far as the mere refusal to transfer, by the foreign 
national, could paralyse the organisation of those centres and introduce a ‘right to 
stay’ at the first centre assigned depending merely on the wishes of the foreign 
national, which has no basis in EU and national law and is incompatible with 
objective needs relating to the organisation of the measures.