Interim decree (Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. oscurato nel provvedimento
Wording of the operative part: «autorizza il ricorrente a rimanere, ai sensi dell'art. 68, par. 2, Reg. (UE) 2024/1348»
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
Even for an application lodged after 12 June 2026 — and therefore subject to the Pact — the application of the accelerated procedure based on Article 28-bis(2)(c) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 (origin from a safe country of origin) is unlawful, that provision being deemed repealed by the entry into force of the Procedures Regulation and of Decree-Law 100/2026. Once that condition falls away, the exceptions to suspensive effect exhaustively provided for by Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 cannot apply, and the appellant is authorised to remain pursuant to Article 68(2).
The Tribunale di Torino (judge Fabrizio Alessandria) authorised the appellant to remain in the territory of the State "pending the outcome of the appeal, pursuant to Article 68(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348". The decision is little more than a page long and the ratio decidendi lies in two passages.
"noted that, although the application was lodged on a date after 12.6.2026, the PA applied the rules on accelerated procedures preceding the entry into force of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum (Article 28-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008), which are to be deemed repealed by the entry into force of the Procedures Regulation and of Decree-Law 100/26".
It is the mirror image of the defect found elsewhere: in Naples and in Bologna the Administration applies the Pact to applications that arose before 12 June, here it applies the former rules to an application lodged after. In both directions the error in identifying the applicable regime overturns the accelerated procedure. According to the defence, the provision actually invoked was Article 28-bis(2)(c) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 — origin from a safe country of origin — whereas the decree cites Article 28-bis without specifying the paragraph.
"held that, consequently, the exceptions to the suspensive effect of the appeal, exhaustively provided for by Article 68 of the Procedures Regulation, cannot apply, none of the situations contemplated by Article 68(3) cited above being at issue"
The reasoning reverses the burden of argument: the derogations of Article 68(3) are exhaustive and presuppose a validly initiated accelerated procedure; once the title that supported it has fallen away, there is no derogation to apply and the rule of paragraph 2 is restored. Hence the form of the operative part: not a discretionary suspension, but authorisation to remain pursuant to Article 68(2).
The decree records that the application had been timely made with the appeal and that the Ministry filed no defence submissions within three days. It is issued by the assigned judge "solely for the purposes of the decision on suspension".
Editorial note. In the circulated PDF both the appellant's personal details and the R.G. number are redacted, so the summary identifies the decision by court, judge and date. According to the defence, the expression of the wish dates from the end of May 2026 and the lodging from 30 June — twenty-six days in total, beyond the time limits of Articles 27 and 28 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, a circumstance that could have led to the application of the former rules: data that cannot be derived from the text of the decree.
Related provisions