New on TikTok: Title of the episode: Dublin transfers and information obligations: the Rome Court annuls the transfer to Slovenia (General Docket Number 37474 of 2025) Good morning, I am lawyer Fabio Loscerbo and this is a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. Today I examine a decision of the Court of Rome, Section for the Rights of the Person and Immigration, issued on the eighteenth of November two thousand twenty-five, in the proceeding entered under General Docket Number 37474 of the year 2025. The decree concerns the challenge brought against the decision of the Dublin Unit of the Ministry of the Interior, which had ordered the transfer of the applicant to Slovenia. The Court upheld the appeal, noting a failure to comply with the information obligations laid down in Articles four and five of Regulation (EU) number six hundred and four of two thousand thirteen. The central issue is the personal interview. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of the thirtieth of November two thousand twenty-three, clarified that the interview is an essential safeguard: it must take place before the transfer decision, it must be conducted in a language that the applicant understands, in conditions guaranteeing confidentiality, and it must allow the applicant to present any relevant personal circumstances. Moreover, the State must draft a written summary containing at least the main information provided during the interview. In the case examined by the Court of Rome, this summary did not exist. The form produced by the administration contained only the applicant’s personal details and domicile, with no indication whatsoever of the questions asked, the answers provided, or any personal elements disclosed during the meeting. In such circumstances, the interview must be considered not validly conducted, and this automatically entails the annulment of the transfer decision. This outcome is confirmed both by the Court of Justice and by the recent case law of the Court of Cassation. The Court also found that it was not possible to remedy the violation through a judicial hearing, as this would have undermined the efficiency and speed required by the Dublin procedure. The consequence is that Italy must be considered competent to examine the application for international protection. See you in the next episode of the “Immigration Law” podcast.

https://ift.tt/tKrTENn Title of the episode: Dublin transfers and information obligations: the Rome Court annuls the transfer to Slovenia (General Docket Number 37474 of 2025) Good morning, I am lawyer Fabio Loscerbo and this is a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. Today I examine a decision of the Court of Rome, Section for the Rights of the Person and Immigration, issued on the eighteenth of November two thousand twenty-five, in the proceeding entered under General Docket Number 37474 of the year 2025. The decree concerns the challenge brought against the decision of the Dublin Unit of the Ministry of the Interior, which had ordered the transfer of the applicant to Slovenia. The Court upheld the appeal, noting a failure to comply with the information obligations laid down in Articles four and five of Regulation (EU) number six hundred and four of two thousand thirteen. The central issue is the personal interview. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of the thirtieth of November two thousand twenty-three, clarified that the interview is an essential safeguard: it must take place before the transfer decision, it must be conducted in a language that the applicant understands, in conditions guaranteeing confidentiality, and it must allow the applicant to present any relevant personal circumstances. Moreover, the State must draft a written summary containing at least the main information provided during the interview. In the case examined by the Court of Rome, this summary did not exist. The form produced by the administration contained only the applicant’s personal details and domicile, with no indication whatsoever of the questions asked, the answers provided, or any personal elements disclosed during the meeting. In such circumstances, the interview must be considered not validly conducted, and this automatically entails the annulment of the transfer decision. This outcome is confirmed both by the Court of Justice and by the recent case law of the Court of Cassation. The Court also found that it was not possible to remedy the violation through a judicial hearing, as this would have undermined the efficiency and speed required by the Dublin procedure. The consequence is that Italy must be considered competent to examine the application for international protection. See you in the next episode of the “Immigration Law” podcast. https://ift.tt/9mGjMJT