Tribunal of Perugia, 17 August 2026

The Tribunal of Perugia (judge Elena Stramaccioni) suspended the enforceability of the decision by which the Commissione territoriale of Florence — Perugia Section had declared the application manifestly unfounded. The transitional regime is here decided not on the date of the application, but on the rules that the Commission actually applied.

The applicable rules

The application was made on 1 July 2026, hence after the entry into force of Decree-Law 100/2026; the Commission nonetheless decided on 9 July declaring it manifestly unfounded under Article 28-ter(1)(a) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 «in the wording prior to that introduced by the Decree-Law cited». According to the defence, which framed the appeal under both regimes, this would not be an isolated case.

The Tribunal starts from Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026, notes the discrepancy and concludes:

it is therefore held that the examination of the appeal against the decision of the Commission and of the accompanying interim application must necessarily be conducted applying the former legislation and that therefore, as a preliminary matter, the appeal must be regarded as filed in time.

The last clause is the practical reason why the question matters: the implicit premise is that the two regimes carry different time limits for appeal, so that a person who followed the former rules — as the Commission had done — would risk being time-barred if the court applied the new ones. ⚠️ The comparison between the time limits is not made in the decision: it is an inference from the text, to be verified before relying on it in a pleading.

In the same direction is the finding that, as to the regularity of the accelerated procedure of Article 28-bis(2) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, «compliance with the overall time limit of 9 days, given the invariance of the interests at stake» is sufficient — complied with in this case. This reading looks to the final time limit rather than to the internal sequence of the stages, and diverges from Trib. Bologna, 4 September 2026, according to which all the stages of the procedure must be complied with.

The criterion is also distinct from that of Trib. Turin, 11 August, which starts from the same anomaly — the administration applying repealed rules to an application made after 12 June — but treats it as a defect of the act, whereas here the administrative choice becomes the rule of decision; and from Trib. Naples, 4 August, which decides on the date of the expression of the wish. The question whether the Commission may «choose» the applicable legislation remains open.

The periculum: continuity of medical investigations

The Tribunal sets aside the aspect of socio-occupational integration, documented only by the report of the foundation hosting the applicant, and gives weight to the medical situation: a radiology report of 23 July 2026 shows enlarged lymph nodes in several sites, for which «clinical and laboratory work-up and subsequent specialist assessment are necessary» is prescribed. Refusal of the application

would expose the applicant to the danger of interruption of medical investigations, the results of which must in any case be produced in the proceedings on the merits, also in order to assess, of the court's own motion, whether the conditions of Article 19(2)(d-bis) of Legislative Decree 286/1998 for the issue of the permit for medical treatment are met.

Suspensive effect is therefore granted so as not to interrupt a diagnostic investigation still under way, without waiting for a definitive diagnosis; and the judge reserves the ex officio assessment of the permit for medical treatment, although the appeal sought only special protection (protezione speciale).