Cass. civ., Section I, Order no. 29125/2024: Reflections on International Protection and Obstative Crimes

The judgment issued by the Court of Cassation on November 12, 2024, concerning the case of an Albanian citizen convicted of serious crimes, offers important points for reflection regarding international protection regulations. In particular, the Court ruled that the commission of serious crimes can constitute grounds for exclusion from international protection, with evident implications for asylum applications.

Context of the Judgment

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 access to 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 exclusion grounds for serious crimes.

The commission of crimes of such gravity as not to warrant international protection is a principle consolidated in case law.

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 "well-founded reasons" to believe that the applicant has committed acts of violence. It was emphasized that the assessment rests with the judge, who must analyze each case independently. Among the salient points of the decision are:

• The need to consider the seriousness of the crime committed and its implications.
• The assessment of living conditions in the applicant's country of origin.
• Consideration of the credibility of the applicant's statements.

Implications for Asylum Applications

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

Conclusions

The judgment 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, are excluded from such a possibility. Respecting the rules of the host country is fundamental to ensuring not only one's own future but also that of one's family.