Interim decree (Article 35-ter(2) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 5971/2026
Wording of the operative part: «dichiara che la proposizione del ricorso sospende automaticamente l'efficacia esecutiva del provvedimento impugnato»
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 does not allow the accelerated border procedure to be applied on the sole ground of the recognition rate: the statistical figure has merely indicative value and the authority must state in concrete terms why the applicant does not belong to categories exposed to specific risks, verifying that the conditions continue to be met during the procedure as well (Article 53(2), point (a)). That verification cannot be made conditional on the completeness of the first statements, which trauma and the shortened time frames may compromise. Where the screening form identifies the applicant as a person subjected to serious forms of violence and neither the determination nor the interview explores the point, the procedure has not been validly applied and does not produce the derogating effects of Article 35-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008: Article 35-bis applies and the appeal suspends the decision automatically (Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers (Sezioni Unite), no. 11399/2024, extended to the breach of procedural guarantees).
The Tribunal of Catanzaro (judge Wanda Romanò) finds that the conditions for the mandatory border procedure are not met, declares the ordinary procedure of Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 applicable and notes the automatic suspension of the rejection as manifestly unfounded adopted by the Commissione territoriale of Crotone.
The decree begins by stating that the regularity of the procedure is reviewed of the court's own motion (Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers (Sezioni Unite), no. 11399/2024) and expressly recalls the Tribunal of Florence of 12 October 2026 (see Tribunal of Florence 13520/2026): Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 does not allow the procedure to be applied automatically and requires the authority to “state, in concrete terms, why the applicant does not belong to categories exposed to specific protection risks”. It adds an argument of its own: the verification cannot be made conditional on the completeness of the initial statements, “otherwise what might be a consequence of vulnerability would end up being used as an indicator of its absence”.
The President's determination of 10 September 2026 was exhausted by the reference to the Eurostat figure. The screening form, by contrast, identified the appellant as a “person subjected to other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence”, without the point being explored even at the interview. The failure to explore it prevents the administration both from identifying the procedural and reception guarantees to be ensured and from verifying whether the applicant falls within the exception in point (j).
The omission “is not a mere formal irregularity, but affects the very condition that legitimises the chosen procedure”: the accelerated border procedure does not produce the derogating effects of Article 35-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008, whether as to suspension, as to the length of the proceedings, or as to manifest unfoundedness under Article 28-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008. The principle laid down by the Joint Chambers (Sezioni Unite) with regard to time limits is extended to procedural guarantees as an expression of the effectiveness of protection.
The decree follows the approach of Tribunal of Bologna 15588/2026 and brings the line of case law to the Calabrian district, alongside Tribunal of Reggio Calabria 2287/2026, concerning the same Commission of Crotone.
Related provisions