Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · N.R.G. 2943-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Article 79(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 identifies the completion of the access phase as the dividing line between the two regimes: the previous rules apply only to applications for which form C3 was drawn up by 11 June 2026, and Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026, which refers to the submission of the application, must be disapplied because it conflicts with the Union rule. To an application lodged on 15 June 2026 the Commissione territoriale cannot apply the accelerated procedure for origin from a safe country of origin under Article 28-bis(2)(c) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, repealed by Decree-Law 100/2026; nor can it be held that it in fact applied the new procedure under Article 42(1), point (e), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, which has different prerequisites, a different designation act and different time limits. None of the exceptions in Article 68(3) therefore applies, and the appeal automatically suspends the effects of the measure and of the return decision.
The Tribunal of Perugia (judge Gaia Muscato) has established the right to remain of a Peruvian national whose application, lodged on 15 June 2026, had been rejected by the Commissione territoriale of Perugia under the accelerated procedure for origin from a safe country of origin provided for by Legislative Decree 25/2008 in the text prior to Decree-Law 100/2026.
The decree reconstructs the access phase of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 in three stages (Articles 26, 27 and 28) and attributes to the expression “applications lodged” in Article 79(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 two meanings: in the first part, the lodging under Article 28; in the second, the concluding moment of access under the previous regime, which in Italy was the drawing up of form C3. It follows that the old procedure remains applicable only if the C3 was drawn up by 11 June 2026.
Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026, which looks to the submission of the application, is in “flagrant conflict” with the Union rule and must be disapplied. The judge rules out the consistent interpretation that would read it as filling a gap: “There is in fact no gap in the Union's transitional rules”. The coincidence of registration and lodging provided for by Article 17(2) of Decree-Law 100/2026 is on the other hand held to be compatible with Article 28(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.
The decree determining the procedure referred to Article 28-bis(2)(c) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, repealed with effect from 12 June 2026. The Tribunal rules out that the error lies merely in the citation: the old and the new accelerated procedure (Article 42(1), point (e), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348) differ in their prerequisites, in the act designating the safe country (Article 2-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 on the one hand; Regulation (EU) 2026/464 or the national list notified under Article 64 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 on the other), in the time limits for examination and in the time limits for appeal. Since a procedure no longer in force was applied, none of the exceptions in Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 applies: the appeal has produced the automatic suspension of the measure and of the return decision.
On the procedural defect the decision coincides with Trib. Torino 11 August 2026. On intertemporal law it adheres to the reading of Trib. Bologna 14126/2026 and is opposed to those that give weight to the expression of the wish to apply (Trib. Napoli 17179/2026, Trib. Milano 31896/2026, Trib. Torino 17608/2026). The same judge subsequently applied this reconstruction to deny relevance to the delay of the Questura (Trib. Perugia 3148/2026). The merits of the designation of Peru are not examined.
Related provisions