CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014
Caritas, and R.A.H. and their daughter were offered accommodation by that organization
for a period of about one to two months. The authors also received a Caritas voucher for
two meals a day for two months. They claim that A.S.M. continued living on the street
during that period and that he requested assistance from various “local administrators”
without success, because the family was ineligible for assistance, given that they had
already been provided with accommodation for six months.
2.6
When R.A.H. and their daughter could no longer stay in the accommodation in
Rome, in April 2011, they moved to Perugia, where R.A.H. and their daughter were
provided with temporary accommodation by Caritas. A.S.M. was again obliged to sleep on
the street or at the homes of Somali nationals, who allowed him to sleep in their gardens or
on their balconies. The authors claim that A.S.M. was only allowed to visit R.A.H. and
their daughter every fortnight and that he was not present when their second child was born,
in June 2011, but that he was allowed to visit R.A.H. and their newborn child in the
hospital on the following evening.
2.7
The authors claim that A.S.M. was unable to obtain legal employment, because, he
was told, he did not speak an adequate level of Italian and needed a driving licence. As a
result, he took unreported employment on various plantations, where he was underpaid.
Sometimes he was not paid for his work, and he could not complain to the police because
he was illegally employed.
2.8
Two months after their second child was born, R.A.H. was obliged to leave the
Caritas shelter. The family returned to Rome and lived on the street. For a while, they also
lived in an abandoned building occupied by refugees, which was not a suitable dwelling
due to the violence, criminality and abuse pervasive among the inhabitants of the building.
On one occasion, the authors’ belongings were stolen and R.A.H. was almost assaulted.
2.9
The authors decided to move to Denmark, where they arrived on 18 December 2012
and applied for asylum. They claimed that they feared persecution by Al-Shabaab and that
their lives would be at serious risk if returned to Somalia. If returned to Italy, they feared
that they would be obliged to live on the street with their minor children. They argued that
the Italian authorities would be unable to protect them from abuse from civilians, that they
had received no benefits or services from the Italian authorities, such as social assistance,
health care, social housing or education, and that they would be unable to apply for
assistance in Italy, given that they had already benefited from the Protection System for
Asylum Seekers and Refugees for six months.
2.10 On 20 December 2013, the Danish Immigration Service determined that, given that
the authors and their children already had a residence permit for Italy, they were precluded
from seeking asylum in Denmark and should be transferred to Italy, in accordance with
section 7 (3) of the Aliens Act. The Service noted that the authors’ allegations that they
would be forced to live on the street if returned to Italy could not influence that
determination, because such socioeconomic factors fell outside the scope of section 7 of the
Aliens Act. The authors appealed the decision before the Refugee Appeals Board. They
claimed that, inter alia, they should be granted asylum protection pursuant to section 7 (1)
of the Aliens Act, because their situation fell within the purview of the Convention relating
to the Status of Refugees; in assessing Italy as the country of first asylum, the authorities
should have taken into account conclusion No. 58 (XL) (1989) of the Executive Committee
of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), according
to which there is an obligation to take socioeconomic factors into consideration when
assessing the application of the principle of country of first asylum; and their physical
safety and freedom had not been sufficiently protected in Italy.
2.11 On 3 April 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Danish
Immigration Service. It pointed out that, inter alia, according to the European Court of
Human Rights decision of 2 April 2013 in Samsam Mohammed Hussein and others v. the
Netherlands and Italy, persons who were granted refugee status, subsidiary protection or
residence permits on humanitarian grounds in Italy were entitled to renewable residence
permits and its holders were entitled to work and to social assistance, health care, social
housing and education under Italian law; on 25 October 2013, the Service had informed the
GE.17-20685
3