Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 18822/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Where the Commissione territoriale's decision was taken following an accelerated examination procedure — with the application lodged after 12 June 2026 — authorisation to remain in the national territory must be granted, pursuant to Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, where there are serious and specific grounds: this is so where the account put forward does not appear manifestly implausible or manifestly foreign to the context of the country of origin (here Peru, as described in the EUAA COI Report, Peru Country Focus, October 2023), and the objections raised against the assessment of manifest unfoundedness do not appear, on the present summary examination, manifestly unfounded.
The Tribunale di Torino (judge Dr. Sara Perlo) authorises the appellant — a Peruvian national — to remain in the national territory pending the determination of the proceedings on the merits. The Commissione territoriale had followed the accelerated examination procedure, applying Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Decree-Law 100/2026, the appellant having lodged the application after 12 June 2026.
The decree reconstructs the standard of assessment along two converging lines: the plausibility of the account, as regards context, and the not manifestly unfounded nature of the objections, as regards procedure. Both remain within the limits of the “summary examination proper to this sub-proceeding”, without anticipating the decision on the merits of the appeal.
“The account put forward in support of the application does not appear, on the summary examination proper to this sub-proceeding, manifestly implausible or manifestly foreign to the context described by the international sources on Peru”: the Tribunal refers, among others, to the EUAA Country Focus on Peru (October 2023). The threshold of interim review is thus low — it does not require a prognosis of success on the merits — but it is not devoid of content: a check of consistency with a reliable body of documentary evidence must still be carried out.
The objections directed at the Commissione territoriale's assessment of manifest unfoundedness “do not appear, at this stage, manifestly unfounded”: here too the object of scrutiny is the “not manifestly unfounded”, not the “well founded”, which allows full adversarial proceedings to follow at the examination stage.
In application of Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, the Tribunal authorises the appellant to remain; the case is assigned to a single judge under Article 17(4) of Decree-Law 100/2026.
The decree belongs to the line of cases verifying the merits of interim relief in accelerated procedure cases under Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, in which — even where the time limits are respected — the Tribunal must assess the applicant's possible belonging to a category “whose protection needs make it impossible to regard as representative” the 20% threshold: it is read alongside Trib. Torino 17949/2026 and Trib. Torino 18229/2026, in which the centre of gravity of the interim assessment remains the individual serious and specific grounds.
Related provisions