Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 18289/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
In an appeal against a decision of manifest unfoundedness taken under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 on an application lodged after 12 June 2026, 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, because the Regulation excludes automatic suspensive effect. Authorisation is granted where the record of the interview discloses a specific factual situation, set out in detail before the Commissione and the subject of a complaint to the judicial authority, which calls for investigative enquiries into whether the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the 20% threshold is not representative.
The Tribunale di Torino (judge Dr. Maria Luciana Cristina Dughetti) authorises the appellant to remain in the national territory pending the determination of the proceedings on the merits and orders the Questura to issue him the receipt or a provisional residence permit.
The Commissione had applied Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Decree-Law 100/2026 on the basis that the application had been lodged, as shown by the C3 form, after 12 June 2026; the Tribunal considers the application of the Regulation correct “having regard to the date on which the application was lodged”. It follows that the request for suspension 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, this being a decision of manifest unfoundedness for which the Regulation “excludes automatic suspensive effect”.
The record of the interview discloses “a specific factual situation that calls for further investigative enquiries aimed at verifying whether the applicant in fact belongs” to a category of persons “whose protection needs make it impossible to regard as representative a recognition rate of 20% or lower”. The decree gives weight to the events described and set out in detail before the Commissione, “also the subject of a complaint to the judicial authority”.
The complaint lodged with the judicial authority is the only concrete element relied on: the decree gives it weight not as proof of the risk, but as an indication of the seriousness of the events alleged and of the need for enquiries on the merits.
This is one of the decrees by which the Turin section, in October, resolves the interim phase of appeals against accelerated procedures under Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, by granting authorisation under Article 68(4) of that Regulation, without ruling on the regularity of the procedure: it is to be read with Trib. Torino 18822/2026 and Trib. Torino 18251/2026. The same judge has, by contrast, referred a border procedure back to the ordinary procedure, on grounds of vulnerability and lack of information, in Trib. Torino 18357/2026.
Related provisions