Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 15360/2026
Wording of the operative part: «autorizza il ricorrente a permanere sul territorio nazionale»
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Article 79 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, which refers only to applications that have been “lodged”, does not clarify which rules apply to proceedings begun by an expression of the wish to apply made before 12 June 2026 and continued by lodging after that date. The gap is filled by Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026, which refers to the “submission” of the application and the “start” of the administrative procedure: that choice of terminology excludes any coincidence with “lodging” and points, as the criterion of intertemporal law, to the moment at which the application “was made” under Article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — which in turn no longer equates lodging with the completion of the C3 form. Under the former rules, failure to observe the time limits of the accelerated examination procedure makes it an ordinary one (Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers, No 11399/2024), with automatic suspension of the rejection decision. Independently, the hearing did not probe the indications of trafficking and exploitation that emerged from the record: such inquiries are “absolutely incompatible with the accelerated procedure chosen” and in any event establish the fumus required for the authorisation to remain.
The Court of Bologna (judge Stefania Cannavale) authorises the applicant to remain in national territory. The Commissione territoriale (Territorial Commission) of Bologna had rejected the application as manifestly unfounded under Article 39(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, treating the applicant as coming from a safe country of origin and applying the accelerated examination procedure under Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The expression of the wish to apply was made on 10 June 2026, the C3 form was completed on 12 August 2026, and the rejection decision, dated 8 September, was notified on 17 September.
The decree sets out at length the reasoning of the twin decrees of 12 August: Article 79 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, which ties the new rules to applications “lodged” from 12 June 2026 onwards only, does not cover proceedings begun before that date and continued after it. Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026, by speaking of the “start” of the procedure following the “submission” of the application, uses terminology distinct from “lodging”: the difference is deliberate and fills the gap in Union law, so that there is no conflict. Under the former rules — which are relevant here because the application is deemed “made” on 10 June 2026 under Article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — the time limits of the accelerated examination procedure were not observed; pursuant to Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers, No 11399/2024, the procedure becomes an ordinary one, with automatic suspension of the rejection decision.
In the second place, and in the alternative to the applicability of the new rules, the record of the hearing discloses “numerous elements giving rise to a suspicion that the applicant was a victim of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation” and that his flight is attributable to dangers to his physical and psychological integrity. The fear of reprisals by creditors called for more specific questions on working conditions and on the circumstances of his departure: “inquiries absolutely incompatible with the accelerated procedure chosen”. The fumus is established; the periculum follows from the obligation to return contained in the rejection decision, which is immediately enforceable.
Editorial note. The heading of the decree reads “N. R.G. 15360/2026”, whereas the body of the decision identifies the civil case as “n. r.g. 12435-1/2026”: the latter reference coincides with that of another decision and is presumably a slip carried over from the template that was reused.
Related provisions