Interim decree (Article 35-bis(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · N.R.G. 15142-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
In the accelerated border procedure under Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, the Commission may not dismiss as generic an allegation — requiring further examination — that amounts to a personal vulnerability: where the interview, even if sparse, reveals a family situation that is “complex because long-standing and marked by episodes of considerable violence”, with recurring threats from the family clan and a conviction in absentia in the country of origin, there are circumstances that give rise to a concrete danger to the applicant’s safety in the event of return and to the need for the support referred to in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, a requirement incompatible with the accelerated border procedure chosen. The procedure should not have been applied and, if applied, had to cease under Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348: the procedure is the ordinary one and the timely appeal against the decision rejecting the application as manifestly unfounded caused the automatic suspension of its enforceable effects under Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.
The Tribunal of Bologna (judge Dr Cristina Reggiani) finds that the timely appeal against the decision of the Territorial Commission of Bologna caused the automatic suspension of its enforceable effects and gave rise to the applicant's right to remain on the territory until the proceedings are concluded. According to the defence, and not apparent from the text of the decree, the appellant is an Egyptian national.
The Commission had applied the accelerated border procedure, characterising entry as having taken place at "an external border crossing point or in a transit zone" and relying on Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The rejection as manifestly unfounded under Article 39(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 had been notified on 17 September 2026; the appeal was filed on 21 September. The Tribunal considers the remarks on the "genericness" of the interview "not at all perspicuous", given that "the questions put to the appellant appear sparse and did not allow him to clarify the aspects of his vulnerability indicated at the screening stage". The "few statements made" nonetheless reveal a "complex family situation, because long-standing and marked by episodes of considerable violence" — vendettas by the clan that had allegedly already blinded the brother who stayed behind, and a conviction handed down by the Egyptian judiciary itself on the complaint of those family members — "which deserves further examination".
The decree draws its conclusion by strict syllogism: the circumstances alleged give rise to a concrete danger to the appellant's safety in the event of return and to the need for the support referred to in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, a "requirement incompatible with the accelerated border procedure chosen by the determining body". The procedure "should not have been applied and, where applied, had to be brought to an end pursuant to Article 21(2)". The ordinary procedure therefore remains, with automatic suspension of enforceable effects under Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — here traced back, in national law, to Article 35-bis(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008.
The same Tribunal, a few days earlier, had followed the same path where the vulnerability emerged from the screening form (Trib. Bologna 15068-15108/2026); here the focus shifts upstream: the vulnerability, even if indicated, must be read from the few lines of the interview and not from the standard formula of the head of the Commission's decision.
Related provisions