Interim decree (Article 35-ter(2) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 21838-1/2026
Wording of the operative part: «dichiara sospesa ex lege l'efficacia esecutiva del provvedimento della CT […] ed autorizza il ricorrente a rimanere nel territorio dello Stato sino alla definizione del presente giudizio»
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Article 34(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 places on the determining authority the burden of translating the documents relevant to the examination of the application, including those submitted by the applicant; the burden is reversed only for subsequent applications. Where the Commissione territoriale considers the documents produced to be relevant — so much so as to base the reasoning of its rejection on them — but does not translate them, the application cannot be examined under the accelerated border procedure, whose time limits are incompatible with translation: under Articles 42(2) and 53(2), point (a), it had to continue under the ordinary procedure, and the appeal automatically suspends the decision. The defect may be raised of the court's own motion. The same outcome follows from the specific allegation of a risk of persecution on political grounds, which removes the applicant from the presumption of Article 42(1), point (j).
The Tribunale di Napoli (judge Dr. Cristina Correale) declares that the enforceability of the rejection as manifestly unfounded, decided under the accelerated border procedure by the Commissione territoriale di Caserta on 23 September 2026, is suspended ex lege. The appellant, who had alleged political activity as district secretary of the Chattra League and false criminal accusations brought against him, complained of the lack of support for the health needs identified at screening. The decree grants the request on a different ground, not raised in the appeal.
Before the Commissione, the applicant had produced copies of court documents, never translated. The rejection relied on them to deny credibility to his account. The Tribunal starts from Article 34(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348: the documents “assessed by the determining authority as relevant for the examination of applications are translated, where necessary”. From this it derives the rule that the translation of relevant documents, including those submitted by the applicant, is incumbent on the administration, and that the burden is reversed only for subsequent applications. The reading is confirmed by the new Article 35-ter(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, which requires the Commissione to file the documentation acquired, “including any translations”.
The consequence is procedural: translation is not compatible with the time limits of the border procedure, so that, under Article 42(2) and Article 53(2), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 read together, the application had to be examined under the ordinary procedure. The relevance of the documents is apparent from the reasoning of the rejection itself, which reproaches the applicant for not knowing the charges against him: the translation would have made it possible to verify them.
Concurrently, the decree rules out the automatic application of Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348: the specific allegations of political persecution, found not to be credible but deserving of examination on the merits, place the applicant in a category for which the recognition rate is not representative (the decree writes “Article 42(3), point (j)”: the correct reference is to paragraph 1). The Commissione, by scrutinising their credibility, would implicitly have acknowledged the allegation.
This is the first published decision to derive from Article 34 a limit on the use of the border procedure. On the second point the decree aligns with Trib. Palermo 9739/2026 and with Trib. Bologna 14155/2026; on the review, of the court's own motion, of procedural guarantees, with Trib. Roma 39909/2026.
Related provisions