Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 11088/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
A copy of the accelerated-procedure determination communicated to the applicant bearing the words “signed original on file”, without a handwritten or digital signature, does not prove that the act does not exist where its origin, content and connection with the procedure are not in doubt and the applicant was informed of the procedural choice before the interview. Acceleration based on concurrent grounds — a recognition rate below 20% (Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348), inclusion of Morocco in the Union list of safe countries of origin of Regulation (EU) 2026/464 (point (e)), application not made as soon as possible after ten years of residence (point (h) or (i)) — is not an automatic reliance on the statistical figure. The information duties of Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 are not constitutive conditions of the accelerated procedure but a transversal guarantee: their breach does not automatically revive the ordinary procedure with its suspensive effect (Joint Chambers no. 11399/2024 concerns the elements proper to the special procedure), but it may justify authorisation to remain where it concretely affected participation — interview not held or held without legal assistance. Where the applicant, having received the untranslated information sheet, subsequently attended the interview with an interpreter and with the counsel of his choice appointed from the time of the application, without alleging any specific prejudice, the breach is merely formal (CJEU, 30 November 2023, C-228/21 and others; Cass. no. 25310/2024). Dismissal, since the fumus of special protection is also lacking.
The Tribunale di Firenze (judge Umberto Castagnini) dismisses the request for authorisation to remain of a Moroccan national who has been in Italy for about ten years, whose application the Commissione of Florence — Livorno Section had rejected as manifestly unfounded in the accelerated procedure under Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. It is the first decision, among those collected, that denies protection and takes a position on the limits of the principle laid down by the Joint Chambers (Sezioni Unite) of the Court of Cassation, no. 11399/2024, under the new framework.
The copy of the determination bore only “signed original on file”. Signature of the copy “does not, as such, constitute an indispensable requirement of validity” where origin and content are not in doubt; the information on the procedural choice, given on 13 July 2026 and repeated at the start of the interview, fulfilled the function of a guarantee. As to the grounds, the Commissione did not confine itself to the statistical criterion of point (j): Morocco is on the Union list of safe countries of origin of Regulation (EU) 2026/464 (point (e)), and the applicant did not apply as soon as possible in ten years of residence (point (h) or (i)). Concurrent grounds, all satisfied.
The information form was in Italian, untranslated. The Tribunale draws a distinction: the principle of the Joint Chambers, no. 11399/2024 — where the accelerated procedure is breached, the ordinary one is revived with automatic suspension — concerns “constitutive or in any event specific elements of the accelerated procedure” (determination, time limits, conditions, including as regards the safe country: CJEU CV and Alace and Canpelli). The duties under Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, by contrast, are “a transversal procedural guarantee”, operating in every procedure; their breach does not automatically revive the ordinary procedure, but “may justify authorisation to remain” where it prevented the guarantees from being recovered: an unsuitable interview, or one held without the applicant having been able to consult counsel. Here the interview took place with an interpreter and with the counsel of his choice appointed from the time of the application, and nothing is alleged about concrete prejudice; the guarantees of the Regulation “work together, according to an integrated logic”, and informing about the procedure is among the duties of counsel. The decree draws the criterion from CJEU, 30 November 2023, C-228/21 and others, and from Cass. no. 25310/2024 on the Dublin leaflet: principles that cannot be transposed mechanically, but which express a general principle of effectiveness. On the merits, the economic reasons for leaving and the integration documented only for the period of detention do not establish the fumus of special protection.
The decision must be read alongside those pointing the other way on the information duties — Trib. Firenze 9251, Trib. Bologna 11342, Trib. Roma 39909 — which treat them as a defect of the accelerated procedure.
Related provisions