CCPR/C/116/D/2402/2014
absence of other housing alternatives. She spent the nights at railway stations, churches or
informal settlements. She sought assistance from the Italian authorities, including to find an
alternative living arrangement and a job, but to no avail. At the same time she was actively
looking for accommodation and work, with no success. She remained homeless, with no
means of subsistence.
2.8
Given that her situation in Italy had become desperate, in August 2009 the second
author travelled to the Norway, where her father and siblings lived. There she applied for
asylum and family unification. The Norwegian authorities carried out a DNA test, which
determined that she was not her father’s biological daughter. She was therefore returned to
Italy by the Norwegian authorities in January 2012 and initially housed in a reception
centre in Turin, where she met the first author. Shortly after her return to Italy, her
residence permit was extended until 4 March 2015. On 11 March 2012, the authors got
married while still housed in the reception centre in Turin.
2.9
In March 2012, the authors were requested to leave the reception centre, without
being offered any assistance in finding alternative temporary shelter, more permanent
housing or work. The authors became homeless. They mostly lived on the streets, and
occasionally in homeless shelters and in churches. They registered with the local
employment office, but were never contacted concerning work opportunities. They did not
receive any financial or other assistance from the Italian authorities.
2.10 The second author became pregnant in 2012 with the first author’s child. She
subsequently contacted the police, hoping to receive assistance in finding a solution to their
housing dilemma, as the homeless shelters where the authors stayed occasionally were
overcrowded and not safe. The police offered no assistance and she was forcefully removed
from the police station.
2.11 Facing homelessness and destitution, being dependent on receiving food from
churches, and fearing being unable to provide for their future child, the authors travelled to
Norway in December 2012 and applied for asylum there. Their applications were refused,
in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003) as
they held valid residence permits for Italy. The authors therefore faced deportation to Italy
by the Norwegian authorities. Refusing to go back to Italy, the authors left Norway for
Denmark on 26 December 2012 without informing the authorities.
2.12 On 21 January 2013, the authors applied for asylum in Denmark. On 9 February
2013, the second author gave birth to their first child, A.A.
2.13 On 28 October 2013, the Danish Immigration Service found that the authors were in
need of subsidiary protection, and ought to be returned to Italy as Italy was their first
country of asylum. The authors appealed that decision before the Refugee Appeals Board,
which on 24 January 2014 upheld the decision of the Immigration Service, stating that the
authors’ case fell within section 7 (2) of the Danish Aliens Act, 1 meaning that they were in
need of subsidiary protection, but should be returned to Italy as that was their first country
of asylum. In March 2014, the second author gave birth to their second child, A.I., in
Denmark.
2.14 The authors claim that they have exhausted all domestic remedies in Denmark and
that the negative decision of 24 January 2014 handed down by the Danish Refugee Appeals
Board is final and cannot be appealed before another court.
1
GE.16-10167
Article 7 (2) of the Denmark Aliens Act reads as follows: “Upon application, a residence permit will
be issued to an alien if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment in case of return to his country of origin. An application as
referred to in the first sentence hereof is also considered an application for a residence permit under
subsection (1)”.
3