• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Cass. civ., Sez. I, Ord. n. 29125/2024: Reflections on International Protection and Exclusionary Crimes

The ruling issued by the Court of Cassation on November 12, 2024, regarding the case of an Albanian citizen convicted of serious crimes, offers important reflections on the norms concerning international protection. In particular, the Court established that the commission of serious crimes may constitute grounds for exclusion from international protection, with evident implications for asylum applications.

The context of the ruling

The appellant, A.A., had requested international protection while serving a sentence for triple homicide. The Court analyzed his position, highlighting that the seriousness of the crime committed constitutes an obstacle to accessing protection. In particular, the Court of Milan had already excluded international protection, basing its decision on the provisions of Articles 10 and 16 of Legislative Decree 251/2007, which provide for grounds for exclusion for serious crimes.

The commission of crimes so serious as to not warrant international protection is a well-established principle in jurisprudence.

Grounds for exclusion from international protection

The Court reiterated that the grounds for exclusion are not limited to the mere existence of a conviction but concern the existence of "serious reasons" to believe that the applicant has committed acts of violence. It was emphasized that the assessment is the responsibility of the judge, who must analyze each case independently. Among the salient points of the decision are:

  • The necessity to consider the severity of the committed crime and its implications.
  • The evaluation of the living conditions in the applicant's country of origin.
  • The consideration of the credibility of the applicant's statements.

Implications for asylum applications

This ruling has significant consequences for those seeking asylum in Italy, as it underscores the importance of lawful and transparent conduct on the part of applicants. The Court highlighted that the protected private and family life cannot be invoked by those who have maintained a false identity and lived as fugitives. This implies that social integration and the legality of the stay in the country are fundamental requirements for the granting of protection.

Conclusions

The ruling calls for deep reflection on the condition of asylum seekers and the importance of legality. The Court of Cassation has drawn a clear line between those who can legitimately aspire to international protection and those who, due to their actions, find themselves excluded from such a possibility. Respecting the rules of the host country is essential to ensure not only one's own future but also that of one's family.