Interim decree (Article 35-ter(2) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 13866-1/2026
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
Where the screening form indicates the need for psychological support and the possible status of a victim of trafficking, the determining authority must assess the need for special procedural guarantees (Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348) and, if support cannot be provided within the border procedure, terminate it (Articles 21(2) and 53(2), point (a)). It is not enough to assert in the abstract that the vulnerability is compatible with the time limits of the procedure, nor to give decisive weight to the applicant's statement that he does not need psychological support, if no further inquiry has been carried out. The duty to inform is not discharged where the screening form certifies that no information was made accessible, not even in paper form, and it does not appear that the applicant had a device with which to consult it. Indicators of trafficking in Libya also exclude the representativeness of the 20% rate: the mandatory nature of the border procedure falls away and the appeal automatically suspends the decision.
The Tribunale di Firenze (judge Dr. Francesca Caselli) finds that the conditions for the mandatory border procedure are not met and declares that the appeal of a Bangladeshi national automatically suspends the rejection as manifestly unfounded decided by the Commissione territoriale di Firenze on 1 October 2026.
The first finding concerns Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. Not only did it not appear that the appellant had a device with which to access the digital information: the “Form certifying the information given to the foreign national — Screening”, with its tick-box system, showed that “no information was made accessible at that time, not even in paper form”. The defect weighs in particular on the information concerning free legal counselling (Article 8(2), point (d)).
The screening form of 4 September 2026 indicated the need for psychological support and the possible status of a victim of trafficking. The Commissione had maintained the border procedure on the ground that the Libyan experience was “circumscribed and overcome”. The Tribunal observes that the compatibility between the time limits of the procedure and the vulnerability had been asserted in the abstract, but no inquiry into the psychological condition appeared to have been carried out: the decision gave “decisive value to the mere statement of not needing psychological support”, even though the applicant had reported memory difficulties and sleep disorders. Under Articles 20, 21(2) and 53(2), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, the procedure had to be terminated.
The decree then takes up the framework of Trib. Firenze 13520/2026 on Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348: nine months in Libya, the confiscated passport, detention and the ransom paid by the family are indicators of trafficking that made it impossible to equate the appellant with the general profile of Bangladeshi nationals. Once that condition has fallen away, the mere circumstance of disembarkation after a search and rescue operation is not enough to make the border procedure mandatory.
On the vulnerability flagged by the screening and not reconsidered see Trib. Bologna 15068/2026 and, in this round, Trib. Reggio Calabria 2287/2026.
Related provisions