The Chamber of Deputies, with 213 votes in favour, 133 against and 5 abstentions, votes to trust the government for the migrant decree, already approved by the Senate.
The centre-left reiterates its opposition to the text, while the majority continues to defend it.
But there is a point of the decree to which the Government will have to change its hand.
We are talking about article 7 ter, which was rewritten in an amendment presented by the government at Palazzo Madama, which in fact would limit the migrant's right of defense.
If the Territorial Commission declares his asylum application inadmissible, in theory, in the light of this provision, he could no longer challenge it.
And this would be "detrimental to the Constitution".
But it is not only the opposition that contests the article of the decree.
Among the agendas presented there is also one signed by a deputy of the majority, Gianfranco Rotondi (FdI), who invites the government to review the point, perhaps even in the context of 'formal correction of the text'.
Indeed, the first to raise doubts about the measure were members of the House Legislation Committee.
And, according to what has been learned, the hypothesis of revising the law has been shared with the Quirinale which would have given the go-ahead to what emerged from the meeting of the Legislation Committee which already last April 26 had invited the Executive to evaluate " the opportunity to specify whether the modification", introduced in the Senate, "
And in this regard, a decision of the Court of Cassation was also reported which, in ruling on appeals against inadmissibility decisions, had stated that "the object of the judgment is not so much the negative provision of the Territorial Commission, but rather the assessment of the subjective right of the asylum seeker.
And doubts on the point were also expressed in the minority report on the measure, signed by Riccardo Magi, secretary of +Europe.
The text of the report underlined how the provision of the decree limited "the right to appeal to the ordinary judicial authority against the decision of the Territorial Commission only to the hypothesis of rejection" of the asylum application and "not also to the declaration of inadmissibility of the question".
And this would imply a violation of two articles of the Constitution: the 24th which guarantees the right of everyone to "take legal action for the protection of one's legitimate rights and interests" arguing that "defense is an inviolable right in every state and degree of the procedure", and 113 which provides for the possibility of appealing against all acts of the Public Administration.
Thus including the Territorial Commission.
Again according to what has been learned, the majority would be thinking of two solutions to get out of the impasse: either resort to an ad hoc 'corrective' provision to be included in a decree as soon as possible, perhaps even in a forthcoming CDM, or rely to a modification of the decree to be carried out during the 'formal coordination of the text'.
This second hypothesis,
