Tribunal of Florence, 6 August 2026

The Tribunale di Firenze (judge Francesco Manfredi) authorised the applicant to remain “for the whole duration of the proceedings until the decision on the merits”. The applicant is a national of Bangladesh who disembarked at the port of Livorno on 14 June 2026 — two days after the entry into force of Decree-Law 100/2026 — and was then transferred to a PAF in the province of Siena; the rejection was for manifest unfoundedness under Article 39 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, following the accelerated procedure of Article 42(1), points (e) and (j), of that Regulation, both of which had been invoked.

The duty to examine the request

The judge notes that Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 excludes the right to remain where the rejection for manifest unfoundedness follows an accelerated procedure, and that Article 35-bis(4) and (4-bis) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 nevertheless requires the court to examine the factual and legal elements set out in the request: “since the applicant has made a timely request for authorisation to remain, it is necessary to assess that request”.

The guarantees of Chapter II apply in the accelerated procedure too

Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 requires the determining authority to respect the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II of that Regulation. Article 8(2) lists what the applicant must be informed of in a language he understands: the stages and time limits of the procedure, rights and obligations and the consequences of failing to comply with them — “in particular as regards explicit or implicit withdrawal” of the application —, the right to free legal counselling and to legal assistance at all stages, and the means of discharging the burden of submitting the elements supporting the application. The duty “is timely and preventive and, in particular, functional […] to enable the applicant for protection to exercise the rights guaranteed by the EU regulation and to discharge his obligations adequately”, and must be read in the light of recital 31.

The finding of fact is the most significant step:

“there is no exhaustive documentation drafted in a language the applicant for protection can understand […]; indeed, the only documents handed to the applicant are those provided for the screening procedure (see Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1356/2024), moreover those documents are also drafted in Italian, apart from a brief summary screening form in two languages”.

The screening information sheets are therefore not those of the asylum procedure: Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 and Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 impose distinct information duties, and discharging the former does not discharge the latter. In the same sense, on the reference to a form with a link or QR code, Trib. Palermo, R.G. 8695/2026.

Procedurally, “the Commissione has not documented in the present proceedings the fulfilment of the duties within the time limits laid down by Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, as amended”: the burden lies on the Administration. The breach, “having prevented the applicant for protection from the adequate, informed and timely exercise of the rights provided for by the EU regulation (including that to legal counselling)”, is held to absorb every other question “by virtue of the more straightforward ground”.

The scope of the decision

The breaches are assessed only for the purposes of authorisation to remain, and not as defects affecting the procedure for examining the application: the decree does not recharacterise the procedure as ordinary. This is the difference from the Trieste line, where the defect in the border procedure leads to converting the procedure, and from Naples, where the error as to the applicable regime causes automatic suspension ex lege to revive.