Commentary on the Ordinance Judgment No. 20480 of 2024: Informational Obligations and the Subsidiary Role of the Judge

The recent Ordinance No. 20480 of July 24, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides significant insights regarding international protection and informational obligations within the context of the Dublin Regulation. The Court reiterated the importance of the subsidiary role of the judge concerning violations of the informational obligations set out in Articles 4 and 5 of EU Regulation No. 604 of 2013.

The Case Under Examination

In the specific case, the court had to address an appeal regarding the transfer of an applicant for international protection ordered by the Dublin Unit. The Court determined that, although the judge has the role of remedying any violations, this must occur in accordance with the timelines established by the procedure. In particular, the Court overturned the appealed measure, highlighting that the court had not promptly exercised its subsidiary function, thus compromising the possibility of remedying the violation of informational obligations.

International protection - Dublin Unit - Transfer of the applicant - Informational obligations - Violation - Consequences - Subsidiary role of the judge - Limits - Case specifics. In the appeal concerning the transfer ordered by the Dublin Unit for the assumption of responsibility for the applicant for international protection by another Member State, the subsidiary role of the judge, in remedying the violation of the informational obligations provided for in Articles 4 and 5 of EU Regulation No. 604 of 2013, can only be carried out if it is compatible with the strict timelines that characterize the procedure in question. (In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the appealed measure and, deciding on the merits, annulled the transfer order, as it was no longer possible to remedy the violation of the informational obligations, since the court had not immediately exercised its subsidiary function and given the time that had elapsed since the adoption of the act).

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for international protection proceedings. In particular, judges must be aware of the need to act swiftly to comply with the informational obligations established by European legislation. Non-compliance with such obligations not only compromises the rights of applicants but can also lead to significant legal consequences for the authorities involved.

  • Compliance with informational obligations is crucial to ensure the applicant's right to defense.
  • The judge has an active and subsidiary role in protecting fundamental rights.
  • The timelines of the proceedings are essential to avoid procedural violations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 20480 of 2024 underscores a crucial aspect of justice in the field of international protection: the necessity for a timely response from judges to ensure respect for the rights of applicants. This case not only clarifies the responsibilities of the judge but also invites broader reflections on the protection of human rights within the European legal context.

Bianucci Law Firm