Interim decree (Article 35-ter(2) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 13520/2026
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 situation under Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 serves an exclusively procedural function and does not introduce a presumption of unfoundedness: the “category of persons” does not coincide with the particular social group, and it is sufficient that serious allegations or indicators emerge that the applicant may belong to a category with specific protection needs. That verification precedes, and does not presuppose, the credibility assessment; if the indicators emerge in the course of the procedure, the authority must terminate the border procedure (Article 53(2), point (a)). Indicators of trafficking in the transit country (relevant even where the applicant did not consent to the anti-trafficking programme) and exposure to violence for reasons of family honour in Pakistan make the general rate unrepresentative: once the condition of point (j) falls away, the mandatory nature of the border procedure under Article 45 falls away too and the automatic suspension is restored.
The Tribunale di Firenze (judge Dr. Umberto Castagnini) finds that the conditions for the mandatory border procedure are not met and declares that the appeal of a Pakistani national, who arrived following a search and rescue operation and was heard six days after disembarkation, automatically suspends the rejection as manifestly unfounded.
The decree starts from judicial review of the procedure (CJEU, C‑406/22; C‑758/24 and C‑759/24, Alace and Canpelli; Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers, no. 11399/2024) and characterises Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as a provision of an “exclusively procedural” nature: the statistical datum “cannot be turned into an individual presumption of unfoundedness”. The “category of persons” is not the particular social group: it is enough that “serious allegations or indicators” of a possible connection emerge. The verification must be carried out at the outset and cannot be confused with the credibility assessment, which “logically and procedurally comes after the choice of procedure”: making the former depend on the latter would produce “a logical inversion”.
The appellant had reported an intermediary paid in Pakistan for a job in Libya, detention on arrival, a subsequent abduction with torture, and debts incurred by the family for his release. These are indicators of possible trafficking, also relevant in the light of Legislative Decree 115/2026, which extends assistance to presumed victims irrespective of the place of exploitation. The lack of consent to the anti-trafficking programme “is not equivalent to a negative finding on the indicators”. A second, independent aspect concerns retaliation for reasons of family honour, which according to the sources may also affect the men involved in the matter.
Those elements, even if not known when the determination was made, had in any event emerged before the decision: Article 53(2), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 requires the procedure to be terminated “at any stage”. Once the condition of point (j) has fallen away, the mandatory nature of the border procedure under Article 45 falls away too. Ad abundantiam, information provided by means of a generic QR code does not satisfy Article 8.
The decree is one of the three of 12 October 2026 that set the Florentine model on point (j), together with Trib. Firenze 13509/2026 and Trib. Firenze 13481/2026; it is taken up verbatim by Trib. Bologna 14155/2026 and Trib. Catanzaro 5971/2026.
Related provisions