Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 19469/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
In an appeal against a decision taken in the accelerated examination procedure under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 on an application lodged after 12 June 2026, authorisation to remain under Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 and Article 68(3) to (5) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 is granted where there are serious and substantiated grounds, drawn from what was reported to the Commission about the events that led to the applicant's departure (in this case, the murder of the father and its consequences), and it is necessary to examine further the applicant's possible membership of a category of persons for whom the 20% threshold of Article 42(1), point (j), is not representative.
The Tribunal of Turin (judge Dr. Sara Perlo) authorises the appellant to remain in the territory of the State pending the determination of the proceedings on the merits.
The Commission had applied Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Decree-Law 100/2026, the application having been lodged after 12 June 2026, and had followed the accelerated examination procedure. The defence had promptly requested authorisation to remain under Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 and Article 68(3) to (5) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348; the Ministry had filed no briefs.
The Tribunal finds that there are serious and substantiated grounds, «with particular regard to what was reported to the Commission about the events that allegedly led the applicant to leave the country, connected with the murder of his father and its consequences», and that it is necessary to examine further the applicant's possible membership of a category of persons «whose protection needs prevent a recognition rate of 20% or lower from being regarded as representative, taking into account, among other things, the significant differences between first-instance decisions and final decisions». In application of Article 68, the appellant is authorised to remain.
Unlike the Turin decrees that refer only generically to the record of the interview (such as Trib. Torino 17934/2026), this one identifies the fact on which the assessment rests: a violent family event, with consequences for the applicant, which makes it doubtful that his profile coincides with the general one on which the threshold is calculated. The decree decides the request solely on the serious and substantiated grounds, without ruling on the regularity of the accelerated examination procedure.
The textual reference to the «significant differences between first-instance decisions and final decisions» reproduces Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and leaves open, for the merits, the verification of the recognition rate before the courts.
It comes from the same judge as Trib. Torino 18822/2026 and belongs to the Turin line of authorisations under Article 68(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 in appeals against accelerated procedures under Article 42(1), point (j), alongside Trib. Torino 18251/2026.
Related provisions