Interim decree (Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · N. 17573-1/2026 r.g.a.c.
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
For applications made after 11 June 2026 and decided under the accelerated procedure, Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 as amended provides as the only interim protection the authorisation to remain on the territory of the State: the request for suspension of enforceability is to be recharacterised accordingly. A recognition rate of 20% or lower (Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348) does not justify accelerated examination where the applicant alleges circumstances — here exposure to threats and violence on political grounds after the student protests of July 2024 in Bangladesh — that place him in a category of persons whose protection needs make that percentage unrepresentative. A Commission that finds such statements not credible in fact carries out an examination of the merits and implicitly assumes that the applicant has alleged, in the abstract, membership of that category, in line with the logic of the ordinary procedure and not of the accelerated one. The fumus of special protection for the risk of severe destitution in the country of origin, documented by COI on food insecurity, poverty and climate disasters, also concurs. The applicant is authorised to remain until the outcome of the appeal.
The Tribunal of Naples (judge Cristina Correale) authorises to remain a Bangladeshi applicant whose application, made after the entry into force of the Pact, had been decided under the accelerated procedure on the basis of a recognition rate of 20% or lower.
The appellant had requested suspension of the enforceability of the measure. The Tribunal observes that the application was made «on a date after 11.6.26» and that the proceedings are governed by Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 as amended by Decree-Law 100/2026, which «provides — as the only interim protection for applications decided under the accelerated procedure — for authorising the applicant to remain on the territory of the State». The request is therefore recharacterised.
The Commission had proceeded under the accelerated procedure invoking Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 in the part on countries with a recognition rate of 20% or lower. The same provision excludes the accelerated procedure where the applicant belongs «to a category of persons whose protection needs make it impossible to regard as representative» that percentage. The appellant had alleged, already at the audition, that he had been targeted after the student protests of July 2024 for having refused to join the demonstrators.
considering also, in this regard, that the CT, in finding the statements on the political grounds put forward by the applicant not credible, in fact carried out an examination of the merits of the application, implicitly holding that the appellant had alleged grounds for considering in the abstract that he belongs to a category of persons whose protection needs make it impossible to regard as representative a recognition rate of 20% or lower, as provided for by the ordinary and not the accelerated procedure.
The accelerated procedure for the 20% threshold therefore presupposes that in the abstract there are no individual protection needs: if the Commission enters into the merits of the credibility of an account of political persecution, it has already acknowledged that in the abstract those needs existed, and should have examined them in the ordinary procedure.
The decree belongs to the line of case-law that denies the Eurostat datum any automatism: Trib. Palermo, R.G. 9739, Trib. Torino, 31 July 2026 and Trib. Bologna, 6 August 2026.
The Tribunal adds the fumus of the alternative claim for special protection, for the risk that return would expose the appellant to «a condition of deprivation of fundamental rights, due to the lack of the minimum conditions to be able to meet the unavoidable needs and requirements of personal life», citing Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers, no. 24413/2021 and Court of Cassation no. 11110/2019. Six of the eight pages are devoted to COI sources on food insecurity, poverty and climate disasters in Bangladesh (IPC, WFP, ACCORD, IFRC, USAID), with specific attention to the district of origin: even in interim proceedings on the authorisation to remain the fumus can therefore rest on the alternative claim.
Related provisions