Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) — with revocation of the closure order · R.G. non indicato nel provvedimento
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
In the accelerated examination procedure under Article 42, point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, the personal account put forward — here, for a Colombian appellant, extortion and threats to her own safety and that of her children — which is shown to correspond to “one of the most serious endemic problems” of the country of origin, as emerges from up-to-date COI (UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/58/24, 24 February 2025), is sufficient to show that the Eurostat percentage is not representative in the case at hand. The precondition of point (j) is not met: the application of Article 35-bis(2-bis) and (3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 — which refers to Articles 67(7), point (a), and 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — falls away, and the appellant is to be authorised to remain in the territory of the State for the duration of the proceedings. A “clerical” error by the Commission, which had led the appellant's position to be confused with that of another appellant, is grounds for revoking the earlier decree closing the interim sub-proceedings and for ruling on the merits at the same time.
The Tribunale di Trieste (judge Dr. Andrea D'Alessio) revokes the decree closing the interim sub-proceedings — adopted because of a “mere clerical error” which had led to the attribution to the appellant of data belonging to another appellant — and, following a report from the Commissione territoriale of Trieste, rules on the merits of the request, authorising the appellant to remain in the territory of the State for the duration of the proceedings. According to the defence, and not apparent from the text of the decree, she is a Colombian appellant accompanied by a minor child.
The request for correction came from the Commission, which had found that the appellant's position had been misrepresented in the earlier closing decree, adopted in the belief that it was unnecessary to rule on the interim relief. The Tribunal, characterising the first decree as “devoid of interim content”, considers its revocation sufficient and, at the same time, rules under Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008.
On the merits of the interim relief, the decree applies the safeguard clause internal to Article 42, point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — an applicant belonging to “a category of persons whose protection needs make a recognition rate of 20 % or lower unrepresentative”, taking into account, inter alia, the differences between first-instance and final decisions — relying on two concrete elements. On the one hand, the appellant's pleadings, in which she reports “being subjected to extortion demands and to threats against her own safety and that of her children”. On the other, up-to-date COI: the OHCHR reports, in its report A/HRC/58/24 of 24 February 2025, “violent extortion by non-State armed groups and criminal organisations”, a “widespread phenomenon that destroys the fragile economies of already impoverished populations”.
The precondition of point (j) is not met: the application of the regime of Article 35-bis(2-bis) and (3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 falls away, insofar as it refers to Articles 67(7), point (a), and 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. This is not — as in other decrees in similar cases — a matter of finding automatic suspension, but of authorising the appellant to remain affirmatively. The decree is to be read alongside the Trieste decrees on the PAF of 14 September and 19 September and, in the line of cases on the non-automaticity of point (j), alongside Trib. Torino 18229/2026.
Related provisions