Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) — subsequent application declared inadmissible · R.G. 44942/2026
Wording of the operative part: «in accoglimento dell'istanza di sospensione, autorizza [il ricorrente] a rimanere sul territorio italiano sino all'esito del presente giudizio»
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Subsequent applications fall within the special procedures of Articles 42 to 56 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, and the court verifies of its own motion that they are correctly conducted, including as regards the guarantees of Chapter II (Cass. SS.UU. 11399/2024). The preliminary examination entails the filing of a written submission or a personal interview (Article 55(4)): the interview may be omitted only if the applicant has submitted a written submission from which it is clear that the application contains no new elements. Article 29(1)(b) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, in so far as it allows the Commissione territoriale to declare a subsequent application inadmissible without an interview even in the absence of a submission, does not comply with the Regulation. The omission of the interview, of legal counselling (Article 16(2), point (b)) and of the assessment of special procedural guarantees (Articles 20 and 21) brings the procedure back to the ordinary one: the effects of the return decision are automatically suspended (Article 68(1)) and detention ends.
The Tribunale di Roma (Eighteenth Civil Section, judge Dr. Francesca Giacomini) grants the request for interim relief against the decision by which the Commissione territoriale had declared inadmissible, without an interview, the subsequent application of an applicant detained in the CPR of Ponte Galeria, finding that no new elements had emerged within the meaning of Article 38(2) and Article 55(3) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The administration had filed no notes: the correctness of the procedure is assessed on the contested decision alone.
The decree extends to subsequent applications the principle of Cass. SS.UU. 11399/2024: like accelerated procedures, they fall among the “special procedures” of Articles 42 to 56 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and entail a contraction of administrative guarantees and of the time limits for appealing. Breach of the guarantees removes the conditions for the special procedure and restores automatic suspension.
The central point is Article 55(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, read with Article 11 on the admissibility interview: the preliminary examination entails a written submission or a personal interview, and the interview may be dispensed with only if two conditions are met together, a “specific written submission” and the clear absence, from it, of new elements. Article 29(1)(b) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, as amended by Decree-Law 100/2026, which allows a subsequent application to be declared inadmissible without an interview, does not, in the Tribunal's view, comply with the “mandatory provision” of the Regulation. In the case at hand, the decision referred generically to allegations and documents, without any reference to written submissions.
Also relevant are the absence of any reference to the legal counselling owed even for the decision on admissibility (Article 16(2), point (b), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348), for which the power of attorney to the lawyer is not sufficient proof, and the absence of any assessment of special procedural guarantees (Articles 20 and 21).
The procedure is ordinary and the effects of the return decision are suspended under Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The operative part “authorises” the applicant to remain, orders the issue of the document under Article 4 of Legislative Decree 142/2015 and declares detention terminated. On the merits the decree notes residence in Italy since 2013, previous holding of subsidiary protection and the failure to validate a previous detention by the Corte d'Appello di Roma.
It follows Trib. Roma 39909/2026, by the same judge, on the review of its own motion of the Chapter II guarantees. On subsequent applications see Trib. Bologna 11342/2026 and Trib. Bologna 16027/2026, which do not address the interview in the preliminary examination.
Related provisions