Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) — repeated request for suspension · N.R.G. 3148-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The criterion in Article 79(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 looks to the date on which the application is lodged as a mere historical fact and disregards the time at which the wish to apply was expressed and the reasons why the lodging took place after 12 June 2026: the delay of the Questura does not affect the applicable rules. The view that renders the unfavourable effects of the new procedure unenforceable against the applicant in order to protect legitimate expectations cannot be endorsed: a protectable expectation would exist only if, under the previous regime, the administration had already exhausted its power to apply the special procedure through expiry of the time limit. The time limits in Article 28-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 in the previous text run from receipt of the documentation by the Commissione territoriale, which is presumed to coincide with the drawing up of form C3, and not from the expression of the wish to apply. The mere presence at the gates of the Questura does not constitute a meaningful expression of the wish to apply.
The Tribunal of Perugia (judge Gaia Muscato) has rejected the request by which the appellant repeated the request for suspension, already refused on 10 September 2026, in the proceedings against the rejection of a subsequent application lodged on 5 August 2026. The defence relied on the line of case law of the Tribunals of Florence and Naples on the unenforceability of the administration's delay in lodging the application. The appellant submitted that he had presented himself every Thursday since 7 May 2026 at the Questura without managing to gain access to the Immigration Office, and that, through his lawyer, he had sent two certified e-mails (PEC) on 25 June and 2 July 2026.
The decree takes up the reconstruction of Trib. Perugia 2943/2026: what is decisive is the conclusion of the access phase, and Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026 must be disapplied. The criterion in Article 79(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 concerns lodging “taken as a mere historical fact”, regardless of the reasons for the delay. A practical argument is added: the expression of the wish to apply, which has no form, is of uncertain date and may not be apparent to the Commissione territoriale when it receives the documents.
The judge rejects the corrective based on legitimate expectations. The succession of rules is a natural effect of every reform, and the new procedure is not in itself less favourable. A protectable expectation would exist only if, under the previous regime, the Commission had already lost the power to apply the special procedure through expiry of the time limit. But the time limits in Article 28-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 in the previous text run from receipt of the documentation, which is presumed to be contemporaneous with the C3 for electronic transmission via Vestanet. They do not run from the expression of the wish to apply: Court of Cassation No 21910/2020 concerns the substantive notion of applicant, not the forwarding of the application.
On the facts, “the mere physical presence at the gates of the Questura” does not constitute a meaningful expression of the wish to apply (referring to Court of Cassation No 14851/2026), and the certified e-mails post-date 12 June 2026.
This is the first published decision to rule against the corrective based on legitimate expectations of Trib. Bologna 14126/2026, of Trib. Napoli 17179/2026 and of Trib. Firenze 11120/2026. On the evidentiary level it tells the defence what is needed to support that thesis: a documented expression of the wish to apply made before 12 June 2026. The merits of the subsequent application are not examined.
Related provisions