Tribunal of Trieste, 8 August 2026

⚠️ The Ministerial Decree of 21 July 2026 on border zones was published in the Official Gazette on 10 August 2026, two days after this decision: it concerns only the ground at § 3.3, while the ground upheld is independent of the ministerial decree. On the point at which it must exist see Trib. Trieste R.G. 4748/2026.

The Tribunale di Trieste (judge Marco Brandolin) suspended inaudita altera parte the decision by which the Prefect of Trieste had authorised the applicant — a Nepalese national, a potential victim of trafficking — to reside only in the reception centre for a maximum of twelve weeks (Article 5-ter(2) of Legislative Decree 142/2015). Of the four grounds of complaint only one passes the interim scrutiny.

The anti-trafficking report that was not assessed

The screening form showed pathological conditions requiring continuous therapy; above all, a PEC message from the implementing body of a regional anti-trafficking project reported that the applicant “is a vulnerable person as a potential victim of trafficking and labour exploitation”.

“the report by a body such as the ONLUS in question indicating an applicant as a potential victim of trafficking triggers the duty to assess whether to activate the referral procedure, and requires the Commissione to review the procedural choice”.

The Commissione instead continued with the accelerated border procedure and “did not give reasons for that choice in the decision determining the applicability of the procedure”, which is the first act of the procedure having external effect. This entails breach of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and of Article 8(3) and (3-bis) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 on the duty of individual examination and on further medical investigation. On the periculum, citing Cass. no. 27797/2024 on the pre-identification of victims of trafficking, the harm “is consumed day by day” because the person remains without access to the National Referral Mechanism.

The three grounds rejected

De facto detention (§ 3.1). The decision imposed daily reporting of presence, but there was no “imposition of any obligation not to leave the place of residence” nor continuous supervision; indeed the signing obligation “leads one to think, if anything, the opposite”. Citing Constitutional Court no. 96/2025 on detention as “physical subjection to another’s power”, the obligation to reside in a centre amounts to a restriction of freedom of movement under Article 16 of the Constitution and falls among the alternatives to detention of Article 10(5) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346. The decree of 7 August reaches the opposite conclusion by giving weight to the concrete arrangements for execution.

Information duties (§ 3.2). Information given by QR code is not in itself insufficient, the applicant having declared that she owned a device able to scan it; as to language, the file shows that she also speaks English, in which the information sheets were available, and upholding the ground “would presuppose proof that the applicant, in fact, does not speak that language”.

Absence of the ministerial decree (§ 3.3): fumus yes, periculum no. Since the new Article 28-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008 refers to an implementing act “necessarily subsequent logically and chronologically”, the Ministerial Decree of 5 August 2019 cannot serve, and the procedure “cannot be regarded as validly instituted”. But for an unlawful authorisation to reside the law already provides a typical remedy, the complaint under Article 5-quinquies of Legislative Decree 142/2015, so that, in the absence of imminent and irreparable harm, “recourse to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure is precluded”.

At this interim stage the Tribunale does not proceed to disapply the underlying act — the Commissione’s determination — which may occur after the adversarial stage has been opened. Hearing set for 23 September 2026.