Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) — subsequent application declared inadmissible · R.G. 16027-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
A subsequent application based on new elements relating solely to complementary protection (here, the birth of a child in Italy, relied on for the purposes of Article 19 of Legislative Decree 286/1998) cannot be declared inadmissible: the Italian legal system makes use of the option in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and treats complementary protection in the same procedure, so that the case law of the Court of Cassation (order 37275/2022 and later decisions) on the admissibility of a subsequent application based on new grounds relating to special protection applies. For consistency, the interview in the preliminary examination under Article 55(4) may be omitted only where there are no new elements on complementary protection either. Since Article 68(3) excludes automatic suspension for every subsequent application, the erroneous declaration of inadmissibility justifies authorisation to remain under Article 68(4). An appeal lodged after seven but within thirty days is admissible if the decision states several time limits at its foot in an ambiguous way.
The Tribunale di Bologna (judge Dr. Marco Gattuso) authorises to remain in the territory the applicant whose subsequent application, made after 12 June 2026, had been declared inadmissible by the Commissione territoriale of Bologna, Forlì-Cesena section, and orders the issue of the document provided for by Article 4(4) of Legislative Decree 142/2015.
The appeal had been lodged after seven but within thirty days of notification. As in Trib. Bologna 15794/2026, the judge notes that the decision stated several time limits at its foot, “entirely indecipherable for a person not assisted at this stage by a lawyer”, and applies the longer time limit.
In the written statement the applicant had relied, as a new element, on the birth of his child in Italy, seeking a finding of complementary protection under Article 19 of Legislative Decree 286/1998. Article 55(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 refers only to new elements relating to international protection; but Italy, making use of Article 2(3), channels complementary protection into the same procedure (Article 32(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008). The approach of Court of Cassation order 37275/2022 therefore remains valid: subsequent applications are admissible “even if based exclusively on new elements attributable to the conditions for the recognition of special protection”.
The decree adds, in tentative form, a second point: in the new framework the personal interview is provided for also in the preliminary examination (Article 55(4)), and may be omitted only if it is “clear” from the statement that there are no new elements. A coherent reading would require the interview also where the new elements concern complementary protection alone.
The classification as a subsequent application appears prima facie correct, and Article 68(3) excludes automatic suspension for every case of subsequent application: the erroneousness of the inadmissibility does not bring the procedure back to the ordinary one, but justifies authorisation to remain under Article 68(4). On the subsequent application and the omitted interview see also Trib. Bologna 11342/2026.
Related provisions