The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the decisions rejecting his application for recognition of his statelessness status from the first instance court and the Court of Appeal on the ground of an error in the choice of procedure (chamber procedure rather than the ordinary recognition procedure).
The case raised one point of principle: what type of court procedure should be applied in determining statelessness. The Supreme Court sustained the Court of Appeal’s previous decision determining that the ordinary procedure of cognition (procedimento ordinario di cognizione) is the type of court procedure to be applied.
- 1954 Statelessness Convention
- Italian Code of Civil Procedure (ICCP)
The applicant, on the assumption that he belonged to a specific ethnic group and had a troubled personal history, applied to the Court of Trento for recognition of his statelessness status. The Court declared the application inadmissible because it was proposed in the forms of the chamber procedure (procedimento in camera di consiglio) and not in the ordinary recognition procedure (procedimento ordinario di cognizione).
The applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeals of Trento, against which the Avvocatura dello Stato had filed an objection, which affirmed that the ascertainment of statelessness status had to be proposed and dealt with in the ordinary procedure. Therefore, it dismissed the appeal.
The appellant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation, served to the Ministry of Domestic Affairs and the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Trento, who did not defend themselves.
The appeal alleged a violation of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure perpetrated by the denial of the chamber procedure (procedimento in camera di consiglio) and invoked extensive case law in support.
The appellant alleged the violation of Articles 737 and 742 bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (ICCP).
Articles 737 et seq. ICCP set out the practical provisions applicable to the chamber procedure.
In particular, pursuant to Article 742 bis ICCP, “These provisions shall apply to all proceedings in chambers, even if they are not governed by the preceding chapters or do not concern family matters or the status of persons”.
For this reason, the applicant argued that Article 742 bis ICCP provides that all cases concerning the dispute on the 'status of persons' should be dealt with in the form of the chamber procedure (procedimento in camera di consiglio).
The Court stated that disputes on the acquisition of nationality are a matter of personal status and therefore are a matter for the ordinary recognition procedure (procedimento ordinario di cognizione) (pursuant to Article 9 ICCP) and the provisions of Article 742 bis ICCP, cannot be extended to other disputes already regulated by the code or special laws. This is because Article 742 bis may not extend the applicable hypotheses of chamber procedure (procedimento in camera di consiglio), but is only aimed at supplementing the procedural rules of those outside the code of procedure with the general rules set forth in Article 737 et seq.
Moreover, the Court stated that the contentious chamber procedure (procedimento in camera di consiglio) is expressly provided for by numerous special laws and, for what is relevant, immigration and international protection provisions, because of the need for absolute rapidity in the definition of the procedure. To the Court, it seems clear that in the acquisition of statelessness status, there is neither absolute subjective urgency nor public interest in the immediacy of the definition.
In the absence of an express legal provision to the contrary, disputes relating to statelessness must be brought and decided in the ordinary forms of judicial proceedings (procedimento ordinario di cognizione).
- Cassazione Civile Sezione I Sentenza n. 1843 del 2002
- Cassazione Civile Sezione VI Sentenza n. 1576 del 2010
- Cassazione Civile Sezione I Sentenza n. 5212 del 2008