Tribunal of Bologna, 12 August 2026

Two twin decrees of the Tribunal of Bologna (judge Cristina Reggiani) on appeals against rejections for manifest unfoundedness by the Commissione territoriale of Bologna — Forlì-Cesena section. The issue is the one addressed by the Tribunal of Naples eight days earlier, but where Naples decides that the former rules apply, Bologna stops at «well-founded doubts», which at the interim stage are enough.

The transitional regime: lodging and expression of the wish

Article 79 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 ties the new regime to applications «lodged from 12 June 2026», but does not clarify the fate of proceedings begun with an earlier expression of the wish and lodged afterwards. The decisive observation overturns the premise of the determining authority, which had made lodging coincide with the drawing up of the C3 form:

“it is pointed out that the drawing up of the C3 form, under the new rules, is no longer required for the purposes of lodging the protection application and that lodging is the third phase of “access to the procedure” which begins with the expression of the wish”.

The national transitional rules, by referring to the «start» of the administrative proceedings, fill the gap in Union law and therefore do not conflict with it. Hence the «well-founded doubts» on the application of the new Regulation: under the former rules the time limits of the accelerated procedure would not have been complied with, with the consequences drawn by Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers, no. 11399/2024 on the ordinary nature of the procedure and on the automatic suspension of the rejection.

The absence of the conditions for the accelerated procedure

There follows an autonomous ratio, which holds «even if the new Union legislation were found to apply to the present case»: the conditions for the accelerated examination procedure are lacking (Article 21(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348).

“the Tribunal considers that the record of the asylum applicant's audition does indeed reveal numerous elements suggesting that the appellant was a victim of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation and came to Italy precisely because he was fleeing situations endangering his psychological and physical integrity.”

The appellant's fear of retaliation by the creditors to whom he had turned to finance his flight from Kuwait would also have called for more specific questions on the working conditions and the circumstances of departure: «inquiries absolutely incompatible with the accelerated procedure chosen». In the same sense, the decree of the Tribunal of Trieste of 8 August. Both operative parts authorise the appellant to remain on the national territory pending the appeal.

The two proceedings

The twin is R.G. 12518-1/2026, in which the rejection rests solely on the safe-country-of-origin ground and the date of the electronic signature does not appear. In the proceeding attached here the signature is of 22 July, fourteen days after the hearing of the 8th: the datum on which the defence had based the complaint that the time limits had been exceeded.

The designation at Union level

Both determinations invoke Article 62(1a) and (1b) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 «as amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/464». The reference is accurate: Regulation (EU) 2026/464 designates as safe the countries in Annex II, among them Bangladesh, the country of origin of the appellants.

Editorial note. Decree R.G. 12518-1/2026 cites the Joint Chambers as «no. 11339/2024»: the correct number, given in the twin, is 11399.