Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 12067/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The information provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 (screening) and that provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 (procedures) are neither interchangeable nor mutually substitutable: the former relates to the preliminary assessment stage and directs the third-country national to the subsequent procedure; the latter ensures the effective participation of the applicant, including prior information on the right to free legal counselling under Articles 15 and 16, an information obligation imposed on the authority autonomously at the latest at the time of registration, even where counselling is subsequently provided on request. The mere handing over of the information under Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 does not discharge the obligation under Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The breach, although it does not entail the automatic reinstatement of the ordinary procedure and of the related suspensive effect by operation of law, is relevant to the assessment of the request for authorisation to remain under Article 68(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008: the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the EU Charter requires that a remedy be ensured that is capable of recovering, in judicial proceedings, the guarantee not fully ensured at the administrative stage.
The Tribunal of Florence (judge Umberto Castagnini) suspends the measure of the Commissione territoriale of Florence of 20 July 2026 — notified on 3 September and challenged on 10 September — and authorises the appellant to remain in the national territory until the proceedings are concluded. The decree is decided on the “most liquid ground”: the failure to file the Commission's defence notes within the time limit of Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 places on the administration the burden of documenting actual compliance with the procedural obligations.
The core is the non-interchangeability of the information under Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 and that under Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The former “aims to enable the competent authorities to establish whether the person concerned is to be referred to the international protection procedure or to return procedures” and serves the preliminary checks (security, health, vulnerability). The latter, “at the latest at the time of registration of the application”, ensures “the effective participation of the applicant in the administrative procedure”: stages, time limits, rights and obligations, consequences of failure to cooperate, means of submitting elements, the right to free legal counselling and to assistance. Recital 16 stresses the provision of “complete information” at a “very early” stage.
Legal counselling under Articles 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 is provided “on request”, but the authorities have an autonomous obligation to inform the applicant of the existence of that right, “and, in any event, no later than the time of registration of the application”. The effectiveness of the right presupposes “prior knowledge of its existence and of the means of access”: information is not “an accessory element” but “a guarantee functional to the effective exercise of the rights of defence”. The mere information under Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 does not make up for it.
Breach of the information duty under Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 “although it does not automatically entail the reinstatement of the ordinary procedure and of the consequent suspensive effect ex lege”, is relevant to verifying the effectiveness of the participatory guarantees and supports the request for authorisation to remain under Article 68(4) of the Regulation and Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008. Article 47 of the EU Charter “requires that a remedy be ensured that is capable of recovering in judicial proceedings the guarantee not fully ensured at the administrative stage”. The reference to the CJEU cases Alace and Canpelli (C-758/24 and C-759/24) reinforces the extension of judicial review to the manner in which the administrative procedure was conducted.
Castagnini confirms — as against Trib. Firenze 11088 — the middle course: the information breach does not reinstate the ordinary procedure ex lege, but justifies authorisation to remain; the novelty lies in the analytical distinction between the screening information and the procedure information, which closes the door on the substitutability of the two.
Related provisions