Interim decree (suspension of enforceability, Article 3(3-quater) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. oscurato nel provvedimento (anno 2026)
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
For the appeal against a transfer decision adopted by the Dublin Unit in respect of a person who registered the application for international protection before 1 July 2026, Article 84(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 is relevant, which leaves the determination of the Member State responsible to the criteria of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013. The formal incompleteness of the transfer decision — which refers to an article of the Regulation left unspecified — and the vagueness of the reference to the applicant’s private and family life in the face of specific allegations and documents together make up the serious and detailed grounds of Article 3(3-quater) of Legislative Decree 25/2008.
The Tribunale di Roma (judge Francesco Rossini) suspended the enforceability of the decision by which the Ministry of the Interior — Dublin Unit had ordered the applicant’s transfer to Belgium. It is the first decision published here on the transitional regime of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 (AMMR), which replaces Dublin III.
The contested decision records that the applicant “registered an application for international protection in Italy on 30 April 2026”. The Tribunale cites in full Article 84 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351, paragraph 2 of which provides that “for applications for international protection registered before 1 July 2026 the Member State responsible for examination is determined in accordance with the criteria set out in Regulation (EU) No 604/2013”. The registration precedes the threshold and therefore falls within paragraph 2.
The decree does not, however, state the principle — still disputed — whether the reference in paragraph 2 to the “criteria” of responsibility alone draws in the whole of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (time limits for take back, information duties, interview) or applies to the criteria in the strict sense: on that point it takes no position.
The Tribunale assesses “overall” two elements, holding them sufficient to make up the “serious and detailed grounds” of Article 3(3-quater) of Legislative Decree 25/2008.
The Dublin Unit’s decision is incomplete. The transfer decree gives reasons by referring to the note of 25.06.2026 by which Belgium acknowledged its responsibility, but reads:
…since the conditions laid down in Article Choose an item. of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 are met in the present case…
“Choose an item” is the placeholder text of a drop-down menu left unfilled: the act does not indicate which article of the Regulation establishes responsibility. The Tribunale notes that the reference to the Belgian note “does not appear formally complete”, but the consequence is substantive — a decision ordering transfer to another Member State does not say on the basis of which provision. Since it is a standardised template, the point goes beyond the individual case.
The reference to private and social life is vague, being disposed of in standard terms “in the face of the specific allegations and documents provided in the present proceedings”. According to the defence, the applicant is expecting a child with his partner: a circumstance not considered by the administrative decision and not apparent from the text of the order.
The Tribunale then considers appearance unnecessary under Article 3(3-septies) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, deals with the case on the papers and orders the applicant to document any presence in a reception facility at the time the appeal was filed.
It is not clarified which domestic provision sets the time limit for appealing, given that Article 43(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 merely requires States to provide a time limit “of at least one week but not more than three weeks”: in the absence of case law, the prevailing reading is that the thirty-day limit of Article 3(3-ter) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 remains, which no domestic provision has adapted — a limit which, however, exceeds the three-week ceiling. It also remains to be determined whether, for appeals subject to the new Regulation, the typification of grounds in Article 43 still allows failings in the information duties and in the interview to be pleaded.
Related provisions