Order (complaint under Article 5-quinquies of Legislative Decree 142/2015 against the authorisation to reside in a specific place) · R.G. 10802/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The seven-day time limit for the complaint under Article 5-quinquies(1) of Legislative Decree 142/2015 runs from actual knowledge of the decision: the service report which attests, in a pre-printed formula, delivery with an interpreter does not prove what information was conveyed, whether the act was translated in full and whether the time limits for challenge and the consequences of non-compliance were explained; failing that, the date on which the complainant turned to counsel is decisive. On the merits, Article 9(5) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346, referred to by Article 54 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, requires the applicant authorised to reside in a specific place to be informed in writing, in a language he or she understands, of the decision, of the means of challenging it and of the consequences of failing to comply with the obligations: a decision drawn up in Italian, not translated in full and lacking any indication of the consequences of the breach — which may lead to implicit withdrawal of the application under Article 41 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — is revoked, every other ground being absorbed, including the question of the constitutionality of Article 5-ter, which is in any case unfounded because the measure does not deprive the person of personal liberty.
The Tribunale di Palermo, holiday-period section (judge Dr Flavia Coppola), revokes the decision by which the Prefect of Agrigento, on 23 July 2026, had authorised a Tunisian national in the accelerated border procedure to reside exclusively in the Sikania Centre in Siculiana for twelve weeks. The decree of 7 August had set the hearing and refused suspension inaudita altera parte; at the hearing the complainant was heard, and the Administration did not appear.
The Administration raised an objection of lateness: the decision had been delivered on 23 July with an Arabic interpreter, and the complaint filed on 5 August. The Tribunal rejects the objection. The documentation "does not make it possible to verify what the actual content of the communication was": the record attests in a generic, pre-printed formula that the recipient understood, without saying whether the act was translated in full, whether the means and time limits for challenge and the consequences of non-compliance with the requirements were explained, "which are not even indicated therein". Physical delivery having been proved but not compliance with the information obligations of Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Article 9(5) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346, actual knowledge coincides with the day on which the complainant turned to counsel, 1 August: the complaint is timely.
Article 9(5) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 — referred to by Article 54 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — requires the applicant to be informed in writing of the decision, of the means of challenging it and "above all" of the consequences of non-compliance, in a language he or she understands and by a concise and accessible communication: it is a "necessary condition for the applicant to be able to conform his or her conduct knowingly". The decision was drawn up only in Italian, does not appear to have been translated in full and does not indicate the consequences of breaching the obligation to reside; serious consequences, because non-compliance may amount to failure to cooperate and lead, in the cases of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Article 23-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008, to implicit withdrawal of the application. The breach is therefore not a formal one and the decision is revoked, the other grounds being absorbed — nullity of the presidential order, restriction of liberty sine titulo, failure to activate independent monitoring. The question of the constitutionality of Article 5-ter for conflict with Article 13 of the Constitution is declared irrelevant and in any event unfounded: the measure, by its concrete content, is not a deprivation of personal liberty. Costs offset owing to the novelty of the issues.
The decision is in line with Trib. Palermo 8694 and 8695 on the information obligations in the Sikania line of cases; it adds the criterion of actual knowledge for the purposes of the time limit for the complaint.
Related provisions