← All case law

Decree (application under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and complaint under Article 5-quinquies of Legislative Decree 142/2015) · N.R.G. 10979/2026

Tribunal of Bologna, 10 July 2026

Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.

Headnote

Ruling inaudita altera parte on the application under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure lodged together with the complaint against the Prefect's decision authorising residence in a specific place, the Tribunal clarifies that the only obligation that may lawfully be imposed on the applicant is to sign the attendance register at the managing body every day, rules out any further restriction as to time or territory, and recognises the lawyer's right to meet the client at the place of residence as well; it sets the hearing for the examination of the merits.

The Tribunal of Bologna, International Protection Division (judge Marco Gattuso), ruling on the application under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure lodged together with the complaint under Article 5-quinquies of Legislative Decree 142/2015 against the decision of the Prefect of Bologna authorising residence in a specific place of an applicant for international protection (a Pakistani national) subject to the accelerated border procedure under Articles 42(1), point (j), and 43 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, has partially granted the request for an order inaudita altera parte, referring to the precedent of the Tribunal of Palermo of 27 June 2026 on the admissibility of the atypical remedy under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The decree clarifies the scope of the constraints that may be imposed on the applicant: the only lawful requirement, absent broader written indications from the Prefettura, is to sign every day the attendance register kept by the managing body, any restriction on freedom of movement as to time or territory having to be ruled out (any assimilation to a measure restricting personal liberty under Article 13 of the Constitution is therefore excluded); it also recognises the lawyer's right to meet the client at the place of residence as well. The Tribunal also points out, with a view to the hearing on the merits, the burden of proof borne by the determining authority as to the regularity of the accelerated procedure and the Eurostat statistical data on the country of origin (referring to Cass. No. 6745/2021 and Cass. Joint Chambers 11399/2024 on the ex officio nature of judicial review of special procedures). The text of the decision is published in redacted form to protect personal data.

📄 Download the decision (PDF, in Italian)