Interim decree (Article 35-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008) — subsequent application declared inadmissible · N.R.G. 11250-1/2026
Wording of the operative part: «accoglie l'istanza di autorizzazione a rimanere»
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
A subsequent application cannot be declared inadmissible without the personal interview on admissibility: Article 55(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 allows the interview to be dispensed with only where it is clear from the written submission that the application does not involve new elements, and the amended Article 29 of Legislative Decree 25/2008 — which omits the obligation to hold an interview where no submission has been filed — conflicts with the mandatory provision of the Regulation. The decision also contains no mention of compliance with the legal counselling obligations.
The Tribunale di Bologna, specialised section for immigration, international protection and free movement of EU citizens (judge Dr Luca Minniti), granted the application for authorisation to remain in the national territory for the entire duration of the proceedings, brought by an applicant whose subsequent application had been declared inadmissible by the Commissione territoriale of Bologna — Forlì-Cesena Section — on the ground that it contained no new elements.
As to the applicable law, the decree starts from Article 79(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, which ties the application of the new rules to applications lodged "from 12.6.26": since the application at issue was lodged by means of the C3 form of 12 June 2026 — even though it had been registered in the preceding days — the Regulation applies, contrary to what the applicant's counsel argued.
On the merits, the Tribunal finds a conflict between the domestic provision and the Regulation. Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 provides that, before a decision on admissibility is taken pursuant to Article 38, the applicant must be given the opportunity to have an admissibility interview, in which to put forward the reasons why the grounds of inadmissibility do not apply to his or her case; Article 55(4) allows the personal interview to be dispensed with only where it is clear from the written submission filed that the application does not involve the new elements referred to in paragraph 3. As no other cases of omission are provided for, the new text of Article 29 of Legislative Decree 25/2008 as amended by Decree-Law 100/2026 — in so far as it omits to provide for the obligation to hold an interview during the preliminary examination where no submission has been filed — conflicts with the mandatory provision of Article 55(3) and (4) of the Regulation.
As to the facts, no interview appears to have been held and the decision expressly states that no submission was filed, without the determining authority — on which the burden lay — accounting for this. The Tribunal adds a systemic observation: the decision contains no mention of compliance with the legal counselling obligations, which are expressly provided for, for the decision on admissibility too, by Article 16(2), point (b)(ii), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.
Hence the granting of the application, "as a consequence of the automatic suspensive effect of the appeal resulting from the unlawfulness of the special procedure followed".
Update. Five days later the same Tribunal, with a different judge, took up and developed the point in Trib. Bologna, 21 July 2026: legal counselling is a service provided by a "person" and not by a leaflet, the Commissione must state the name of the adviser and the date of the interview, and the burden of proving compliance with the special procedure lies with the determining authority.
Related provisions