Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 17934/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Where the Commissione has applied Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 to an application lodged after 12 June 2026 and has followed the accelerated examination procedure under Article 42(1), point (j), within the time limits, the request for suspension must be characterised as a request for authorisation to remain under Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Article 35-bis(4) and (4-bis) of Legislative Decree 25/2008. Authorisation is granted where there are serious and specific grounds, drawn from the pleadings and the defence documents and from what was stated to the Commissione, and it is necessary to examine further the applicant's possible belonging to a category of persons for whom the 20% threshold is not representative, taking account of the differences between first-instance and final decisions.
The Tribunale di Torino (judge Dr. Monica Mastrandrea, designated under Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026) authorises the appellant to remain in the national territory pending the determination of the proceedings on the merits and orders the Questura to issue the receipt or a provisional residence permit.
The decree notes that the Commissione applied Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Decree-Law 100/2026, the application having been lodged after 12 June 2026, and followed the accelerated examination procedure of Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. It expressly observes that “the time limits of the accelerated procedure appear to have been complied with” and that the Ministry filed no defence submissions within the three days. On these premises suspension is not automatic and the request is characterised as a request for authorisation to remain under Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Article 35-bis(4) and (4-bis) of Legislative Decree 25/2008.
Authorisation is justified by the formula that the Turin section adopts in these decrees: the serious and specific grounds emerge “in the light of the pleadings and defence documents, with particular regard to what was stated to the Commissione concerning the events that allegedly led the applicant to leave the country”, and it is necessary to examine further the possible belonging to a category of persons “whose protection needs make it impossible to regard as representative a recognition rate of 20% or lower, taking into account, inter alia, the significant differences between first-instance and final decisions”.
The decree does not state which specific facts underpinned the assessment: it refers to the record of the interview and to the defence documents.
The decree anticipates by one day the same formula as Trib. Torino 18822/2026 and is to be read with Trib. Torino 17949/2026, of the same date. The reference to the “significant differences between first-instance and final decisions”, taken verbatim from Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, is the point on which Trib. Bologna 14155/2026 builds its critique of the Eurostat data.
Related provisions