Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 10378/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Outside automatic suspension — because the cases under Article 35-bis(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 and Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 apply — authorisation to remain pending the appeal is granted where the grounds of appeal are not manifestly unfounded, there are no contrary grounds (Public Prosecutor and criminal record), enforcement would entail removal to the country of origin — here Tunisia, characterised by a “condition of insecurity and instability” that makes “the daily life of citizens difficult and uncertain” — and remaining without a title would result in the extreme curtailment of the rights to full healthcare, education and work. The interim measure is accompanied by an order to issue the document referred to in Article 4(4) of Legislative Decree 142/2015.
The Court of Genoa (investigating judge Patrizia Cazzato) authorises the applicant to remain pending the proceedings, with the consequent right to obtain the document provided for by Article 4(4) of Legislative Decree 142/2015. The applicant, a Tunisian national according to his counsel and not apparent from the text of the decree, challenged the decision adopted by the Commissione territoriale (Territorial Commission) under Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, within the time limits of the accelerated examination procedure.
The decision starts from the finding that the appeal does not automatically suspend the decision under Article 35-bis(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, because one of the cases referred to in Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 applies. The Court finds the periculum “of serious and irreparable harm” in the combination of three elements: the grounds of appeal, the absence of contrary grounds (the Public Prosecutor reported nothing and the criminal record obtained of the Court's own motion is clean) and the enforcement of the decision, which would entail the applicant's removal, with the resulting difficulty of returning should the appeal succeed, whereas remaining without a title extremely limits access to full healthcare, education and work. To this is added the observation on the country of origin: Tunisia, “although not characterised by indiscriminate and widespread violence”, presents “a condition of insecurity and instability” which “makes the daily life of citizens difficult and uncertain”, as follows from the very sources cited in the contested decision.
For the merits, the Commission is ordered to “specify and indicate the date on which the applicant expressed the intention to make an application for international protection” within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Decree-Law 20/2023, “a date not coinciding with the lodging of the application by means of the C/3 form”.
The decree is the first by the Court of Genoa, among those published on SOS Patto, on the merits of the post-Pact accelerated procedures and, without ruling on Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, it places on the Commission the burden of investigating the distinction between the expression of the wish to apply and lodging.
Related provisions