Italy’s Rome Court Strikes Down Dublin Transfer After Finding Severe Breaches of Information Duties

 Italy’s Rome Court Strikes Down Dublin Transfer After Finding Severe Breaches of Information Duties

In a significant ruling that may reshape how European authorities conduct Dublin procedures, the Tribunal of Rome has annulled a transfer order issued under the Dublin III Regulation after identifying serious violations of the applicant’s right to receive proper information during the procedure.

The decision, dated 18 November 2025 and recorded under General Docket Number 37474/2025, concerns an applicant whose transfer to Slovenia had been ordered by Italy’s Dublin Unit. The court found that the administration had failed to comply with the core informational duties established in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, which require authorities to provide clear, accessible and complete information to asylum applicants and to conduct a meaningful personal interview before adopting a transfer decision.

Central to the court’s reasoning was the nature and purpose of the personal interview. According to established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interview is not a mere formality. It must be conducted in a language the applicant understands, in conditions guaranteeing privacy, and must allow the person to present individual circumstances that may influence the determination of the responsible Member State. Moreover, the interview must be faithfully summarised in writing, ensuring transparency and enabling effective judicial review.

In the case examined by the Tribunal of Rome, the administration produced only a standardised form containing the applicant’s personal details and address, with no record of the questions asked, the answers provided, or any substantive element of the interview. The court held that such a form does not fulfil the requirements of Article 5 and is legally comparable to the absence of an interview altogether.

Based on both European and national jurisprudence, the lack of a valid interview results in the automatic annulment of the transfer decision. The court also ruled out the possibility of remedying the administration’s failure through a judicial hearing, as this would conflict with the accelerated structure of the Dublin mechanism and its requirement for rapid identification of the competent State.

Consequently, the Tribunal declared that Italy must assume responsibility for examining the applicant’s claim for international protection.

This decision reinforces a growing trend across Europe: courts are increasingly insisting that Dublin procedures respect not only their formal structure but also the substantive guarantees necessary to protect applicants’ rights. The ruling sends a clear message that procedural shortcuts are incompatible with the standards imposed by EU law.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo