Interim decree (Article 35-ter(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 11066/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
In the accelerated border procedure under Article 45(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, the absence of any evidence that the Commissione territoriale assessed the vulnerabilities of the applicant — who had alleged that he had been imprisoned in Libya and left at sea — amounts to a breach of procedural guarantees and, by virtue of the principle laid down by the Joint Chambers in Cass. S.U. No 11399/2024 (albeit concerning time limits) and of the effectiveness of protection under Article 67(1) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, results in the re-expansion of the ordinary procedure and the automatic suspension of the enforceability of the contested decision pursuant to Article 35-bis(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008.
The Tribunale di Catania (judge Dr. Rossella Vittorini) declares suspended the enforceability of the decision of the Commissione territoriale which had rejected the application for international protection as manifestly unfounded at the end of the accelerated border procedure activated under Article 45(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The appeal was lodged within the time limits set by Article 35-ter(1) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, as amended by Decree-Law 100/2026.
The appellant had stated in the record of his interview (p. 7) that he had been imprisoned in Libya and left at sea “without knowing where they were going”. The appeal complained that “the presidential determination carried out no subjective assessment of the vulnerabilities of Mr […], still less an objective assessment of the suitability of the place where the border procedure is conducted” (p. 13). In the interim proceedings the Commissione filed neither written submissions nor the documentation required by Article 35-ter(4-bis) of Legislative Decree 25/2008: in the absence of any material from which the actual adoption of the guarantees could be inferred, the Tribunal finds the alleged breach plausible.
Although laid down by the Joint Chambers with reference to non-compliance with the time limits of the accelerated procedure (Cass. S.U. 11399/2024), the principle also applies where “the procedural guarantees laid down to protect the applicant have not been complied with” or “the conditions for the valid initiation of the accelerated procedure are lacking”, being “intimately linked to the principle of effectiveness of protection” which Article 67(1) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 reaffirms. The re-expansion entails the application of Article 35-bis(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 — “The lodging of the appeal suspends the enforceability of the contested decision” — with the resulting right of the appellant to remain.
The fumus boni iuris remains without prejudice to the merits: the allegations of acts of persecution or inhuman and degrading treatment will be assessed in the full examination, including for the purposes of recognition of complementary protection.
The decree is to be read alongside Trib. Firenze 13481/2026 on the failure to ensure legal counselling and Trib. Torino 19020/2026 on the vulnerability flagged at screening but not reconsidered.
Related provisions