Order (appeal under Article 5-quinquies of Legislative Decree 142/2015) · R.G. non indicato
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
An appeal under Article 5-quinquies of Legislative Decree 142/2015 against the measure by which the Prefect authorises an international protection applicant subject to the border procedure to reside solely in the designated reception centre (here, the Sikania Centre in Siculiana) is well founded where it does not appear that the administrative authority assessed the actual conditions of the place against the individual's particular needs — under Article 9(4) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346, referred to by Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — nor that the preliminary duties to inform, in a language the applicant understands, about the examination procedure and the consequences of non-compliance with the measure were discharged.
The Tribunal of Palermo (judge Michele Guarnotta), lifting the reservation made at the hearing of 22 September 2026, rules on the appeal under Article 5-quinquies of Legislative Decree 142/2015 against the measure of the Prefect of Agrigento of 18 August 2026, by which an Egyptian protection applicant — subject to the accelerated border procedure under Articles 43, 45 and 54 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — had been authorised to reside exclusively at the “Villa Sikania” reception centre in Siculiana (AG) for twelve weeks from the registration of the protection application.
The prefectural measure had as its sole premise the determination of the President of the Commissione territoriale of Palermo – Agrigento Section, which had ordered the examination of the application under the accelerated border procedure pursuant to Article 45(1). The authorisation to reside, provided for by Article 5-ter of Legislative Decree 142/2015 and called in aid within the procedure by the combined provisions of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Article 9(4) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346, is ancillary to the completion of the special procedure and must reflect, in determining the place and manner, the actual reception conditions.
The 28-page order starts from a survey of the defects alleged — summed up as the need for specific reasoning on the conditions of the Sikania Centre against the appellant's individual needs, for compliance with the duty to inform about the examination procedure and about the consequences of non-compliance with the measure, and for consistency between the choice of place and the type of procedure applied — and examines each allegation in turn, in constant comparison with the reference EU framework.
The ratio of the decree concerns the duty to give reasons for an authorisation to reside in a “specific place” where the Prefect merely indicates the location of the hotspot without accounting for whether the material conditions of the centre are compatible with the individual's needs, and where the preliminary information — in a language the applicant understands — on the examination procedure is not shown to have been actually provided under Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The line aligns with the decisions requiring substantive, and not merely formal, review of the choice of place within the border procedure: in particular, Trib. Palermo 9986/2026 — delivered by the same judge on the Sikania Centre — and Trib. Catania 10504/2026 on the Augusta hotspot, as regards the inaudita altera parte aspect.
Related provisions