Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · Proc. 16082/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
To applications for international protection expressed before 12 June 2026, although the new procedural rules introduced by Decree-Law 100/2026 apply, the substantive rules in force before the entry into force of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum continue to apply. What matters for this purpose is the date of the expression of the wish — documented by the certificate issued by the contracted body that handles the booking of the appointment — and not that of the subsequent drawing up of the C3 form: the time elapsed between the two is not irrelevant, because the Administration has had from the very first moment the possibility of assessing in the abstract the conditions of the accelerated procedure. The procedure must therefore be brought back to the ordinary one of Article 27 of Legislative Decree 25/2008, with the consequent automatic suspension of the enforceability of the contested measure under Article 35-bis(2) and (3).
The Tribunal of Turin (judge Fabrizio Alessandria) has declared that there is no need to rule on the request for authorisation to remain «since the enforceability of the contested measure is already suspended ex lege». To reach that result the judge must establish that the accelerated procedure had been unlawfully adopted, and does so by giving weight to the date of the expression of the wish rather than to that of the C3 form.
holding that, to applications for international protection expressed on a date before 12.6.2026, although the new procedural rules introduced by Decree-Law 100/2026 apply, the substantive rules in force before the entry into force of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum continue to apply.
The participle is that one: applications expressed before 12 June, not registered or lodged.
The wish had been expressed on 11 May 2026, and the proof is the document issued by the Italian Red Cross of Turin, «that is to say by one of the "associations that handle the booking and scheduling of the expression of the request for international protection on the prenotafacile platform"», according to the list of authorised desks published by the Questura. The certificate of the contracted body is not a party's document, but the trace of a step organised by the Administration itself, which Decree-Law 100/2026 has moreover brought inside the procedure (Article 26-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008).
The time elapsed between the expression of the wish and the drawing up of the C3 is not irrelevant «also because the Administration, from the very first moment, has had the possibility of assessing the existence, in the abstract, of the conditions for the possible start of the accelerated procedure (for example in the case of origin from a safe country of origin; so literally Trib. Firenze, decree of 18.4.2025)». If the condition could be assessed from the first contact, the delay in lodging cannot turn into an advantage for the one who caused it. The Florence precedent predates the Pact and is here reused as a criterion of transitional law.
With the accelerated procedure gone, the procedure «must be brought back within the ordinary one provided for by Article 27 of Legislative Decree 25/2008», with application of Article 35-bis(2) and (3), and suspension of enforceability «automatic (see again Cass. Sez. Un. no. 11399/24)». The interim request is not rejected but declared superfluous; the proceedings continue in the ordinary forms, with the hearing set for 20 April 2032, and the suspension ex lege covers their entire course.
This is the mirror-image situation to that of Turin, 11 August, by the same judge. The criterion was subsequently circumscribed by Trib. Bologna, 4 September 2026, which makes the relevance of the expression of the wish conditional on the delay being attributable to the Administration.
The decree does not indicate which provision of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 the Commission had invoked for the accelerated examination, nor does it rule on the appellant's vulnerability, alleged among the grounds of appeal according to the defence: the issue remains absorbed and unprejudiced.
Related provisions