Order on the implementation of the interim decree (Articles 669-duodecies and 614-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure) · R.G. 9731-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Following the amendment of Article 17(3) of Decree-Law 100/2026 by Article 4 of Decree-Law 168/2026, the personal document issued upon registration of the application under the transitional regime is equivalent to the document referred to in Article 4(4) of Legislative Decree 142/2015, is valid for one year from registration and permits employment pursuant to Article 22(1) of Legislative Decree 142/2015. A person who already holds it is not entitled to a different, additional document for the implementation of the interim decree that recognised the ordinary procedure and the suspension of the measure: the request under Articles 669-duodecies and 614-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure must be rejected, but the Tribunal finds that the document already issued is suitable to give effect to the interim decree, producing the same legal effects as the one under Article 4(4).
The Tribunale di Palermo (judge Dr. Angela Lo Piparo) decides the request by which an Egyptian applicant sought to have the arrangements determined for the implementation of the interim decree of 27 July 2026 (R.G. 9731/2026), which had held the ordinary procedure of Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 to be applicable and had suspended the rejection by the Commissione territoriale. The application sought an order for the issue of the document under Article 4(4) of Legislative Decree 142/2015, together with an indirect coercive measure of EUR 100 for each day of delay (Article 614-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure).
After the registration of the application on 18 June 2026, the applicant had obtained only the attestation of the expression of the wish to apply. The Questura of Agrigento had refused the document, considering the registration document sufficient and holding that the certificate under Article 29(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 could not be issued during the transitional regime of Article 17 of Decree-Law 100/2026. In the appellant's view, the transitional regime had not affected the distinction between the registration document and the document under Article 4(4) of Legislative Decree 142/2015.
The order re-examines the question in the light of the legislation that came into force during the proceedings. Article 4 of Decree-Law 168/2026 (which the decision cites as “d.l. 29 settembre 2026, n. 186”) extended the transitional regime to 30 April 2027 and provided that the document issued pursuant to Article 17(3) of Decree-Law 100/2026 “is equivalent to the document referred to in paragraph 4” of Article 4 of Legislative Decree 142/2015, is valid for one year from registration and permits employment pursuant to Article 22(1) of Legislative Decree 142/2015. The amendment “expressly resolved the interpretative question”: a person who already holds the registration document is not entitled to a further document.
The Tribunal rejects the request, ordering the applicant to pay the costs, but does not declare it inadmissible: it examines it on the merits and, in the operative part, finds that the document already issued is “suitable to give effect to the decree”, with the same legal effects as the document under Article 4(4) of Legislative Decree 142/2015. The finding makes the equivalence intended by the legislature enforceable against employers and offices.
First published decision on the equivalence introduced by Decree-Law 168/2026. On the issue of the document as content of the interim decree see, in the same period, Trib. Bologna 15058-1/2026; on registration under the transitional regime, Trib. Torino 17608/2026.
Related provisions