Interim decree (Article 35-ter(2) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 2287/2026
Wording of the operative part: «dichiara che il provvedimento impugnato deve considerarsi automaticamente sospeso per effetto della proposizione del ricorso»
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Where the President's determination records that the screening shows the applicant to be an alleged victim of trafficking and of serious forms of violence, but merely states that he was assigned to a centre providing medical and psychological support and that the interview was conducted by an experienced officer, without the file documenting that this was actually done, and where no question is put at the interview on vulnerability, the accelerated border procedure has not been correctly implemented: Articles 21(2) and 53(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, by providing for the ending of a procedure already under way, require constant monitoring of vulnerability, which the Commission must account for. It follows that the procedure is converted from Article 35-ter to Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 and the decision is automatically suspended (Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers (Sezioni Unite), no. 11399/2024).
The Tribunal of Reggio Calabria (designated judge Francesca R. Plutino) finds that the conditions for the accelerated border procedure are not met, orders the procedure to be converted from Article 35-ter to Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 and declares the decision of the Commissione territoriale of Crotone automatically suspended for the whole duration of the proceedings.
As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal rejects the Ministry's request for restoration of the time limit: the Ministry had filed its brief late, alleging problems with the electronic filing. Printouts of error screens, without the certified emails (PEC) and without proof of timely action, are not enough.
The determination of 27 August 2026 applied the border procedure (Article 43(1), point (c), and Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348), while acknowledging that the screening showed the applicant to be an “alleged victim of human trafficking” and of “torture, rape, other forms of violence”. To justify keeping the procedure in place, the determination stated that the applicant had been assigned to a Red Cross centre providing medical and psychological support and that the interview would be conducted by an officer trained in dealing with vulnerable persons. The Tribunal observes that nothing in the file documents that these arrangements were actually put into effect and that the record of the interview shows that “no question was put to investigate these aspects”, although the applicant had stated that he had been beaten in Libya.
Articles 21(2) and 53(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, by also providing for the ending of a procedure already under way, “implicitly call for constant monitoring of the condition of vulnerability”, which the Commission must account for. Having continued the procedure while omitting, from the interview onwards, the individualised assessment of vulnerability means that the procedure was not correctly implemented: on the basis of Court of Cassation, Joint Chambers (Sezioni Unite), no. 11399/2024, the ordinary regime applies again, the exception in Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 not being met.
The decree shifts attention from the initial determination to its implementation: the guarantees declared must be borne out by the file. It is to be read alongside Tribunal of Catanzaro 5971/2026, on the same Commission, and Tribunal of Florence 13866/2026.
Related provisions