Keine unmenschliche oder erniedrigende Behandlung für Asylsuchende in Italien:
Die Aufnahmebedingungen für Dublin-Rückkehrende in Italien haben sich seit 2020 verbessert, so dass eine unmenschliche oder erniedrigende Behandlung nicht mehr droht.
(Leitsätze der Redaktion)
[...]
53. It notes in that context that the latest modifications to the Italian system of reception of applicants for international protection took effect on 22 October 2020 and that these entailed, inter alia, that applicants for international protection would once more, within the limits of places available, have access to the second-tier reception facilities within the SAI (former SIPROIMI) network (see paragraphs 32-33, 36 and 47 above); a modification welcomed by UNHCR (see paragraph 37 above).
54. Since, as confirmed by the Italian Government, if transferred to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation, the applicant would be considered an applicant for international protection who would be entitled to accommodation within the Italian system of reception facilities (see paragraph 46 in fine above), the Court cannot but conclude that, following the latest legislative changes, she would be eligible for placement in the SAI network. This also follows from the contents of the circular letter of 8 February 2021 cited in paragraph 36 above. What is more, such placement would be given priority in view of the fact that the applicant, as a single mother with two minor children, belongs to one of the categories of persons defined as “vulnerable” in Italian legislation (see paragraphs 33-34 and 47 above). In the absence of any concrete indication in the case file, the Court does not see any reasons to assume that the applicant and her children will be unable to obtain a place within the SAI network when they arrive in Italy or that the facilities within that network and the conditions provided would not be adapted to the age of the children.
55. However, even if the applicant and her children would, pending placement in SAI facilities, initially be accommodated in first-tier reception facilities, the Court notes that the latest amendments also included an extension of the range of services to be provided in those facilities (see paragraph 35 above). According to UNHCR, moreover, effective access to essential services was guaranteed as the right of applicants for international protection to register their residence had been restored (see paragraph 37 above).
56. The Court further has no reason to assume that the Dutch authorities would not inform their Italian counterparts of the scheduled arrival date in Italy of the applicant and her children, of their family situation and of any medical needs of any of them (see paragraph 21 above), as they did previously (see paragraph 15 above). In that context the Court lastly notes that the applicant has not argued that her youngest daughter requires specialist treatment unavailable in Italy.
57. In view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant has not demonstrated that her future prospects, if transferred to Italy with her children, whether looked at from a material, physical or psychological perspective, disclose a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship that is severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3. [...]
