Interim order (inaudita altera parte) – appeal under Article 5-quinquies of Legislative Decree 142/2015 · R.G. 10504/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
In an appeal under Article 5-quinquies of Legislative Decree 142/2015 against a Prefect's measure authorising the applicant for international protection to reside only in the crisis point of the hotspot at the Commercial Port of Augusta, the conditions of *fumus boni iuris* and *periculum in mora* are met for suspending the enforceability of the measure inaudita altera parte: restricting freedom of movement pending the adversarial stage affects a fundamental right, and the Prefect's measure appears prima facie vitiated by the failure to provide information on the examination procedure applied and on the consequences of non-compliance, as well as by the failure to tailor the measure to the reception conditions guaranteed by Article 9(4) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346, referred to in Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.
The Tribunale di Catania (judge Dr. Eleonora Guarnera) suspends inaudita altera parte the enforceability of two consecutive measures of the Prefect of Syracuse — of 5 and 9 September 2026, of substantially similar content — by which an Egyptian national applying for protection and subject to the border procedure had been authorised to reside “only in the crisis point, located in Augusta (SR), Hotspot at the Commercial Port” for twelve weeks running from the registration of the application.
The appellant alleged multiple grounds of unlawfulness and requested, by way of interim relief under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suspension of enforceability, including inaudita altera parte. The Tribunal addresses directly the fumus of the alleged defects — nullity of the underlying act, breach of the obligations to provide information on the examination procedure and on the consequences of non-compliance with the measure, lack of individualisation — and the periculum: pending the adversarial stage, the restriction of freedom of movement affects a fundamental right, which cannot be restored ex post.
The decree refers to Article 9(4) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 — expressly invoked by Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — which requires adequate material reception conditions where the applicant is obliged to reside in a specific place. The contrary allegations on the conditions at the Augusta Hotspot render the reasoning for the choice of the exact location prima facie deficient. At the same time, the failure to inform the applicant, in a language he understands, of the procedure applied and of the consequences of breaching the measure goes to the preliminary obligation under Articles 8 and 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, which is general and independent of the type of procedure.
The Tribunal sets the hearing for confirmation, modification or revocation of the decree for 5 October 2026, replacing it with the filing of written submissions under Article 127-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure, and requires the appellant to effect service by 22 September, in compliance with the time limit in Article 5-quinquies(3) of Legislative Decree 142/2015.
The order forms part of the line of interim orders inaudita altera parte in Article 5-quinquies appeals — alongside Trib. Genova 9094/2026 and Trib. Palermo (Guarnotta) of 13 October 2026 — and shows that the objection based on the lack of information on the procedure applied (developed by Trib. Trieste 5022/2026) also holds in measures authorising residence inside the hotspot.
Related provisions