Decree (Article 35-bis(4-bis) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) — complaint against the Tribunal's interim decree · R.G. 2243/2026
Wording of the operative part: «dichiara inammissibile il reclamo»
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The complaint to the Court of Appeal against the Tribunal's decree on the request for suspension, previously provided for by Article 35-bis(4-bis) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, was repealed by Article 10 of Decree-Law 100/2026 with effect from 12 June 2026; Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026, which refers to the previous “rules”, does not preserve its application, because it concerns the rules and not the competence to decide. A complaint filed after 12 June 2026 is therefore inadmissible, even where the proceedings concern an application subject to the transitional regime.
The Court of Appeal of Milan, sitting in vacation section (President Lorenzo Orsenigo, reporting judge Federico Botta), declares inadmissible the complaint under Article 35-bis(4-bis) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 filed on 1 August 2026 against the Tribunal's decree on the request for interim relief.
The decree, a few lines long, rests on two findings. The first: Article 10 of Decree-Law 100/2026, with effect from 12 June 2026, repealed the complaint formerly provided for by Article 35-bis(4-bis) of Legislative Decree 25/2008. The second: Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026, relied on by the defence to argue for admissibility, “refers expressly to the mere previous ‘rules’ and not to the competence to decide”. The Court recalls a consistent precedent of its own (decree no. 1342/2026 of 23 June 2026, R.G. 1738/2026).
The reasoning is literal: Article 17(4) preserves the previous rules for proceedings already begun, but would not serve to keep alive a repealed means of appeal, nor to vest the Court of Appeal with competence over an interim measure of the Tribunal.
The decree does not state the date on which the application was made or the content of the measure complained of, and does not distinguish between substantive and procedural rules beyond the statement quoted.
The question is specific to the transitional regime: for applications made before 12 June 2026 the procedure remains, according to the case law of the lower courts, the former one (see Tribunal of Turin 17608/2026 on the notion of “making” the application), but the Milan court rules out that the reference to the previous “rules” includes the interim complaint, a remedy that the Pact does not provide for. For the Court, interim protection in proceedings pending under the transitional regime is therefore exhausted before the Tribunal.
The decree is to be read alongside Court of Appeal of Palermo 544/2026, which, before the repeal, had upheld a complaint under paragraph 4-bis. After 12 June 2026, at least in the district of Milan, the remedy is no longer available.
Related provisions