Interim decree (Article 35-ter(2) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 13509-1/2026
Wording of the operative part: «dichiara che la tempestiva proposizione del ricorso determina la sospensione automatica dell'efficacia esecutiva del provvedimento impugnato»
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The duty to inform under Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 is the counterweight to the compression of time limits in the border procedure and must be interpreted purposively: a stereotyped template identical for everyone is not enough; timely information and legal counselling are required, targeted to the individual applicant's situation and capable of bringing vulnerabilities to light; handing over only the translated screening form, with the Eurodac information notice, does not discharge the duty. Where there are indicators of trafficking suffered in Libya, neither assessed nor followed by a referral, and information that was not effective, the determination excluding that the applicant belongs to a category for which the 20% rate is not representative has no basis: the condition of Article 42(1), point (j), falls away, and with it the mandatory nature of the border procedure; the appeal automatically suspends the decision.
The Tribunale di Firenze (judge Dr. Massimiliano Sturiale) finds that the conditions for the mandatory border procedure are not met and declares that the appeal of a Bangladeshi national, who disembarked on 4 September 2026 after a search and rescue operation and was heard on 11 September, automatically suspends the rejection as manifestly unfounded.
The first part coincides with Trib. Firenze 13520/2026: ex officio review of the conditions of the special procedure, the procedural nature of Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, verification of the category of persons prior to the credibility assessment. Here too the appellant had reported an intermediary, detention in Libya, an abduction with violence and debts incurred by the family: indicators of trafficking which, for the purposes of the choice of procedure, made it impossible to equate his profile with the general one of Bangladeshi nationals. Unlike the Pakistani case, the appellant had not even been given the information on the anti-trafficking programme.
The distinctive feature of the decree is its purposive reading of Article 8(2): the information must be provided “as soon as possible” precisely so as to enable the applicant to exercise the rights and comply with the obligations of Article 9, including that of attending the interview. It follows that the administration “cannot confine itself to a stereotyped template identical for all applicants”, but must put the person in a position to know, at the interview, what the central elements of his or her case are, with a legal, psychological and mediation approach. Information on free legal counselling, which is instrumental to the lodging of the application, must be given by the time of registration (Article 15(2)).
In the case at hand, the appellant had received only the screening form translated into Bangla, with the information notice under Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 and the Eurodac one: no legal assistance, no identification of vulnerabilities, no referral. The two connected aspects make the general rate unrepresentative; the application is returned to the ordinary procedure.
On the screening form alone as insufficient information see also Trib. Torino 18361/2026; on the right to legal counselling, Trib. Firenze 13481/2026.
Related provisions