Italy's administrative appeals court (TAR del Lazio) in Rome has affirmed the legitimacy of the public administration's decision to deny the Emergency NGO access to documents related to the procedures for allocating the Ortona and Livorno ports to the Life Support vessel for the disembarkation of migrants rescued at sea.
The decision by the public administration to deny Italian humanitarian NGO Emergency access to documents and records related to the procedures for assigning the ports of Ortona in Abruzzo and Livorno in Tuscany to the Life Support vessel for disembarking rescued migrants at sea has been deemed legitimate. Italy's administrative appeals court (TAR del Lazio) ruled that there was no illegitimacy in the public administration's refusal.
Decisions leading up to Emergency's request
On March 25, the Life Support vessel, carrying 161 individuals, was directed to the Ortona port as a designated 'place of safety' for disembarkation and assistance.
Subsequently, on April 29, the Livorno port was assigned for the disembarkation of an additional 35 persons.
At that time, Emergency requested all the documentation related to the procedures that led to the selection and assignment of the port, criticizing the silence and thus implicit refusal by the infrastructure and transportation ministry, the general command of the port authorities, and the interior ministry.
Motivations provided by court for refusal
A law issued by the current government under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni makes it mandatory for ships to perform only one rescue operation at a time and to then disembark those rescued at a port assigned by the Italian authorities. The authorities can decide to select a port far from the point of rescue without providing any justification for this choice.
The administrative appeals court found that the assessments for the selection of the port at which to disembark migrants "cannot be considered, as the appellants ask, in an isolated manner separate from the activity of sea patrols and rescue."
The court highlighted the confidentiality of the documents, whose disclosure may harm national security, defense, sovereignty, and international relations' continuity and fairness.
Furthermore, the court stated that the documents reflect positions and interests linked to the government's foreign policy, and political choices and actions. Access to these documents, concerning a discretionary activity, may jeopardize national interests if divulged, making the denial of access legitimate.