Interim decree (Article 35-bis(3), (4) and (5) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · N.R.G. 17417/2025
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The accelerated procedure under Article 28-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 can be regarded as properly initiated only if the determination of the President of the Commissione territoriale on the type of procedure, provided for by Article 28 of Legislative Decree 25/2008, has actually been adopted: where the determination is unsigned — even where the procedural time limits have formally been complied with — the logical antecedent on which the acceleration rests cannot be said to exist (Cass. No. 12444/2025), with the consequence that the ordinary procedure applies again and enforceability is automatically suspended under Article 35-bis(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008. The correctness of the accelerated procedure must be assessed «not only with regard to compliance with the time limits of the administrative procedure, but also with regard to compliance with the various stages into which the procedure itself is divided» (Joint Chambers No. 11399/2024): the characterisation of the procedure as accelerated must stand as the logical antecedent of the final decision, and cannot derive from the mere formula «manifestly unfounded» contained in the decision of rejection.
The Tribunal of Bologna (judge Silvia Rossi) declares automatically suspended the decision of the Commissione territoriale of Bologna that had rejected the application as manifestly unfounded in the accelerated procedure under Article 28-bis(2), point (c), and (1), point (b), of Legislative Decree 25/2008. The defect is a missing document: the determination of the President on the type of procedure — the basis for the choice of acceleration — does not appear to be signed.
As to the time limits of the administrative procedure, the decree finds no consequences: «the time limits of the accelerated procedure under Article 28-bis appear to have been complied with». The point lies elsewhere. The Commission, although invited to make submissions on the point, did not overcome the objection:
despite the invitation to the Commission to make submissions on the point, the determination of the President under Article 28 of Legislative Decree 25/2008 cannot at present be said to exist, given the absence of a signature on the document in question.
The consequence is drawn from the principle of Joint Chambers No. 11399/2024, recalled at length: the correctness of the accelerated procedure must be assessed «not only with regard to compliance with the time limits of the administrative procedure, but also with regard to compliance with the various stages into which the procedure itself is divided». The characterisation of the procedure as accelerated must stand «as the logical antecedent of the final decision, and cannot derive from the mere formula of "manifest unfoundedness" contained in the decision of rejection».
The decree anchors the point in Cass. No. 12444/2025, according to which the applicant «cannot be denied the possibility of knowing in advance the procedural model under which his application will be examined, also in order to challenge any erroneous determination by the President of the Commission and to be notified of it when the outcome is communicated». The right to prior knowledge presupposes that a determination exists and can be identified: an unsigned document does not satisfy the requirement, and the defence during the administrative procedure is compromised from the outset.
Automatic suspension under Article 35-bis(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, as the ordinary procedure applies again. The decree is in line with the other Bologna decisions published on this site which, when the defect concerns the stages of the special procedure (determination, time limits, conditions), apply the principle of Joint Chambers No. 11399/2024. What is peculiar to this ruling is that it isolated a minimal defect — the absence of a signature on a single act in the administrative procedure — as sufficient to cause the logical antecedent of acceleration to fall. As to evidence, the burden falls on the administration: invited to make submissions, it did not produce a signed determination, and the gap cannot be cured in judicial proceedings.
Related provisions