Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 18905/2026
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 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 granted where the record of the interview discloses a specific individual situation requiring further investigation as to whether the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the 20% threshold is not representative.
The Tribunal of Turin (judge Dr. Maria Luciana Cristina Dughetti) authorises the appellant to remain in the territory of the State pending the proceedings on the merits and orders the Questura to issue the receipt or a provisional residence permit.
The decision follows the pattern of Trib. Torino 18289/2026: the application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 is held to be correct on the basis of the date of lodging shown in the C3 form; 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; serious and substantiated grounds are drawn from the record of the interview, from which «there appears to emerge a specific individual situation, which requires further investigation» as to whether the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the 20% threshold is not representative.
The decree does not describe the individual situation. According to information reported by the defence and not deducible from the text of the decree, the applicant, a Peruvian national, was the manager of a business that was the victim of extortion by a criminal group and had produced a copy of a complaint filed in the country of origin; the expression of the wish to apply was made after 12 June 2026.
The text retains some unresolved alternatives of the template («has/has not filed defence briefs»; «has/has not filed reply briefs»): this confirms that the Turin section decides these requests with standard reasoning, in which the verification of the conditions for the accelerated examination procedure is exhausted by a reference to the date of lodging. Any complaints about the regularity of the procedure, if raised, are not examined.
It follows that the decree, although favourable to the applicant, has limited value as a statement of principle: it serves as confirmation of the Turin practice rather than as an argument to be relied on in other proceedings.
On another Peruvian applicant and the same formula, see Trib. Torino 18822/2026; on accelerated procedures converted to the ordinary one because of procedural defects, in the same tribunal, Trib. Torino 18361/2026.
Related provisions