Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · N.R.G. 13748-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The border procedure is unlawfully applied to an applicant whom the screening identified as needing psychological support and as a person subjected to torture and serious violence, even where a police officer, on the same form, ticked the boxes for special procedural needs: a police officer or a medical practitioner may certify the capacity to understand and to stand in proceedings, but cannot rule out the need for special procedural guarantees, which concerns the dynamics of the protection procedure and which Article 53(2), point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 lists among the exceptions to the border procedure. Special reception needs concern whether the vulnerability is compatible with the facility; special procedural needs require time that is not compressed and arrangements — trained staff, legal counselling, referral — that ensure genuine and complete statements. A concise interview that does not explore very recent torture, a debt with indicators of trafficking and the need for support, with information duties and legal counselling left undocumented, confirms the incompatibility. The derogation from automatic suspension operates only for an accelerated procedure that has been correctly conducted (Joint Chambers no. 11399/2024, a principle that remains applicable under the new framework): the court verifies of its own motion the conditions and stages of the special procedure and, where they are lacking, establishes the right to remain under Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.
The Tribunale di Bologna (judge Marco Gattuso) establishes the right to remain of an applicant who arrived on 21 July 2026, whose application the Commissione territoriale of Bologna had rejected as manifestly unfounded under Article 39(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 in the border procedure (Article 42(1), point (j)). The decree expressly refers to Trib. Bologna, 7 September 2026 (judge Baraldi) and develops its point: the vulnerability identified at screening and the border procedure.
The Agrigento screening form records the need for “psychological support” and classifies the applicant as a “person subjected to other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, person subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment”; on the same form a police officer ticks the boxes for special reception needs and special procedural needs. The presidential determination of 30 July makes no mention of this; the rejection states that the conditions were “the subject of a specific assessment during the interview”, but the record shows a single question (“how are you now?”) and no exploration of the six abductions in Libya, the last on 23 June 2026, or of the debt incurred for the journey, with indicators of trafficking. There is no record that the applicant was informed of the right to free legal counselling (Articles 8(2), point (d), 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348), nor of any assessment of the category for which the 20% rate is not representative.
The decisive point is the unlawful adoption of the border procedure for a vulnerable applicant. Under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 there is no longer an automatic link between vulnerability and incompatibility with the special procedures, but Article 53(2), point (c), excludes from the border procedure “applicants who are in need of special procedural guarantees”, and a contrary certification by a police officer or a medical practitioner “cannot be regarded as decisive”: they may verify the capacity to understand and to stand in proceedings, “but obviously have no specific competence as regards the particular procedural and judicial dynamics of international protection”. Special reception needs relate to the facility; procedural needs require “time — which cannot be compressed — and arrangements” that ensure genuine, complete and reliable statements. An “extremely concise” interview on torture that occurred a few days earlier confirms the incompatibility.
The border procedure was applied without the necessary conditions and its stages were not respected. The principle laid down by the Joint Chambers (Sezioni Unite) of the Court of Cassation, no. 11399/2024 — the derogation from automatic suspension operates only for an accelerated procedure that has been correctly conducted — remains applicable under the new framework: the court verifies of its own motion and, failing that, establishes the right to remain under Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.
Related provisions