Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 15794-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Where the foot of the Commissione territoriale's decision states several time limits for appeal (thirty and seven days), in a way that is indecipherable for a person without a lawyer, the breach of the obligation to state the time limit clearly and unambiguously requires the longer stated limit to be applied: the reduction of the ordinary time limit operates only if one of the conditions of Article 67(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 is met and if the reduced time limit is stated as the sole time limit; failing that, the party must be restored to time. Exceeding the three-month time limit of Article 35(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — running, under the transitional rules, from registration, which counts as formalisation under Article 17(3) of Decree-Law 100/2026, and calculated up to the signing of the decision by the president of the panel — rules out the procedure being classified as accelerated: automatic suspension is restored (Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers, no. 11399/2024).
The Tribunale di Bologna (judge Dr. Marco Gattuso) finds that the appellant has the right to remain: the timely lodging of the appeal produced the automatic suspension of the decision adopted following accelerated examination under Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.
At the foot of the decision the Commissione stated, on page 9, the ordinary time limit of thirty days (Article 35-bis(2) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) and, on page 11, that of seven days “if, at the time of the decision, one of the circumstances referred to in Article 42 exists” (paragraph 2-bis): eight pages of notices, translated into several languages, “entirely indecipherable for a person not assisted at this stage by a lawyer”. The manifest breach of the obligation to inform clearly and unambiguously requires the maximum time limit stated by the decision itself to be taken into account: the reduced time limit operates only if a condition of Article 67(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 is met and if it is stated “as the sole time limit for appeal”. The appeal, lodged within thirty days, is admissible.
The application had been registered on form C3 on 18 June 2026 and decided on 21 September 2026. The time limit of Article 35(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 runs from formalisation, but under the transitional rules registration counts as formalisation (Article 17(3) of Decree-Law 100/2026); as regards the final date, what matters is the signing by the president of the panel, not the date of the deliberation (11 September). The principle of the Joint Chambers in no. 11399/2024 remains current: where the European legislator wished to make the exceeding of a time limit irrelevant, it said so expressly (Article 35(1), on inadmissibility; Article 51(1), on formalisation in the border procedure). The defect, which may be raised of the court's own motion, absorbs the question of the applicable rules, given that the application was probably made before 12 June 2026: under both regimes the time limits of the special procedure had been exceeded.
The decree applies to the three-month time limit of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 the rule already laid down for the time limits of the former accelerated procedure. The same passage on time limits is taken up by the same judge in Trib. Bologna 16027/2026, on a subsequent application.
Related provisions