Anonymous (X) v. Ministry of the Interior and the Florence Territorial Commission for International Protection

An individual from Bangladesh had, with his family, experienced frequent flooding in his village, causing repeated destruction of their homes and land, forcing the family to live in extremely precarious conditions and homeless for prolonged periods of time. It was argued this flooding contributed significantly to the applicant’s situation of extreme poverty. Furthermore, his family have never received any kind of assistance, support or form of compensation, neither local nor national, to deal with the recurrent flooding and related damage.

The applicant was trafficked to Romania, and then was later trafficked to Italy. He then found underpaid work in Palermo, Italy, where he was told by a doctor he was suffering from exhaustion as a result of his working conditions. The case was referred to a regional anti-trafficking body (SATIS), which determined he had been trafficked from the outset. It was acknowledge that climate vulnerability had led to his being trafficked. He filed his claim for protection in 2017.

Initially, the Florence Territorial Commission (Commissione Territoriale per la Protezione Internazionale di Firenze) found the applicant’s account plausible, it found there was insufficient evidence to identify the applicant as a victim of trafficking or to consider that there was a risk of return related to trafficking. Specifically, it decided that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution within 1951 Refugee Convention definition, nor did it find he was exposed to an actual risk of serious harm as defined in Italian law (Legislative Decree 251/2007). Furthermore, they established that there were no elements of risk of serious harm as there is currently no armed conflict in Bangladesh and therefore no possibility of a different type of international protection (subsidiary protection). They also found the conditions for humanitarian protection (outlined in Legislative Decree 25/2008) were not met. As such, in October 2019, they denied the application for protection and the applicant appealed in December 2019.

In the appeal to the Ordinary Tribunal of Florence (Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze), in December 2019, the legal team emphasized that the flooding the Brahmapuhtra river was continuous and that there was no state support. Additional evidenced established the risks of flooding in both the applicant’s home region and in Bangladesh, the country of origin, as a whole. His legal team argued that, should the applicant return, he would face a risk of being trafficked and a situation of extreme poverty. They emphasized the lack of minimum welfare and community solidarity, would exacerbate this. This endangered personal dignity of the applicant and his family, in line with the prerequisite for the recognition of humanitarian protection in Italian law, which deems serious natural disasters or other serious local factors hindering repatriation in dignity and safety as a factor. His large debts owed to traffickers caused fear for threats to his life, given the extreme violence (death, kidnapping, torture) and constant threats to his family members when he had failed to repay.

The Court in Florence (Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze) found that fear of persecution included a violation of the person’s human rights, as protected by international and regional law. Human trafficking involves violations of human rights, specifically those outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights, buttressed by case law at the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, they decided, human trafficking is a form of persecution relevant to refugee status. The Court also found that the individual could be part of a ‘social group’ - as outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and Italian law - on account of his common identity with other trafficking victims.

Furthermore, the Court found that the individual, and his family, had already suffered persecution, serious harm, and threats of serious harm. Retaliation by traffickers was considered as part of the future threats of harm, as well as discrimination and ostracism once the applicant had returned to his village. Similarly, there are no comprehensive rehabilitation and reintegration programs for those who have been trafficked in rural villages areas of Bangladesh, including the applicant’s own. As such, they found that the individual was at specific risk of retrafficking, exacerbated by poverty, debt, and social isolation. Therefore, the Court held, the applicant had a well founded fear of suffering multiple forms of persecution if he were returned. The Court also noted that climate change would amplify the risk of being retrafficked.

As such, the applicant was granted refugee status.