Yesterday, the Swiss television informed that Switzerland is already sending back families to Italy due to Dublin-III-convention : www.srf.ch (resume in Italian : dirittiefrontiere). This only three weeks after the decision of European Court on Human Rights against Switzerland in the case Tarakhel: hudoc.echr.coe.int

As the report says, Swiss authorities got a list of reception centers (SPRAR) where Italy garantees good conditions for families with children (see a part of it in minute 4.15 : Acireale, Acquaformosa, Acquaformosa OPCM 3933, Acquapendente, Adelfia, Africo, Agnone, Agrigento, Alessandria Provincia, Alice Bel Colle, Ass. ADL a Zvidovici AP 2012 Az. 4). Furtheron, the report says also that Switzerland already sent back one family to Italy yesterday. Finally, as I got informed two days ago, already on November 3d, Switzerland had decided to keep the family Tarakhel in Urgency (means only giving them food and a bad place to sleep) : relevancy.bger.ch.

In practice it means that furtheron, in Italy there will be two classes of refugees because of the decision of ECHR: the one guaranteed (1. Class) and the rest who will still stay in bad condition or thrown into the streets. I am willing to do everything to stop this and already asked Swiss parliamentarians and journalists to get this list. There are two things Italian activists can do as soon as we get the list (or who have access to informations on the ones already known). The easier way is to PROVE BY CASE (not only tell by being told) that condition in these SPRAR are NOW (not last month) not ok for families (find below the exact text of the decision of ECHR in english and french). The other way is to PROVE BY CASE (not only bell by being told) that 2.Class-refugees are thrown out of these SPRAR in order to make place for 1.Class-refugees NOW (not two days ago), ideally with documents or clear orders of the bosses of the NGOs ruling the SPRAR.

I thank you for any advices and will send the list as soon as possible if you don’t write back to this email that you don’t want to be informed about this any longer.

Thank you for your attention

Salvi

„FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Declares, unanimously, the complaints of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds, by fourteen votes to three, that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicants were to be returned to Italy without the Swiss authorities having first obtained individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that the applicants would be taken charge of in a manner adapted to the age of the children and that the family would be kept together;

3. Holds, unanimously, that the Court’s finding at point 2 above constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;

4. Holds, unanimously,
(a)
that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amount, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b)
that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 4 November 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.“

„PAR CES MOTIFS, LA COUR

1. Déclare, à l’unanimité, la requête recevable quant aux griefs tirés de la violation de l’article 3 de la Convention et irrecevable pour le surplus ;

2. Dit, par quatorze voix contre trois, qu’il y aurait violation de l’article 3 de la Convention si les requérants devaient être renvoyés en l’Italie sans que les autorités suisses aient au préalable obtenu des autorités italiennes une garantie individuelle concernant, d’une part, une prise en charge adaptée à l’âge des enfants et, d’autre part, la préservation de l’unité familiale ;

3. Dit, à l’unanimité, que la conclusion de la Cour au point 2 ci-dessus constitue en soi une satisfaction équitable suffisante pour tout dommage moral pouvant avoir été subi par les requérants ;

4. Dit, à l’unanimité,
a)
que l’État défendeur doit verser aux requérants, dans les trois mois, la somme suivante, à convertir dans la monnaie de l’État défendeur, au taux applicable à la date du règlement : 7 000 EUR (sept mille euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d’impôt par les requérants, pour frais et dépens ;
b)
qu’à compter de l’expiration dudit délai et jusqu’au versement, ce montant sera à majorer d’un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne applicable pendant cette période, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage.

Fait en français et en anglais, puis prononcé en audience publique au Palais des droits de l’homme, à Strasbourg, le 4 novembre 2014, en application de l’article 77 §§ 2 et 3 du règlement de la Cour.“