Interim decree (Article 35-bis(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · N.R.G. 13298-1/2026 e N.R.G. 13384-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The misalignment between the determination of the President of the Commission — which orders only the accelerated procedure under Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — and the final decision, which also applies the border procedure without a corresponding channelling measure, renders the special procedure unlawful. If, moreover, relevant elements of vulnerability (reported gender-based violence and serious psychological suffering; classification at screening as a "person subjected to abuse/neglect by parents/other relatives" with special reception needs already identified) emerge from the screening or arise at the interview, the Commission is required to carry out the reassessment prescribed by Articles 20, 21 and 53 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348: its omission confirms the unlawfulness of the border procedure. It follows that the conditions of Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 cease to exist, with the re-expansion of the automatic suspensive effect under Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree 25/2008 and a finding of the appellant's right to remain in the national territory for the duration of the proceedings.
Two decrees of the Tribunal of Venice (judge Tobia Aceto), issued one day apart in different cases but with the same ratio decidendi, declare suspended ex lege the rejections as manifestly unfounded by the Commissione territoriale and find that the appellants have the right to remain in the territory. Both procedures had been applied to applications lodged after 12 June 2026, and the Commission had applied Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Legislative Decree 25/2008 as amended by Decree-Law 100/2026.
The defect is common to both: the determination of the President of the Commission of 21 August 2026 “ordered exclusively the application of the accelerated procedure under Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348”, whereas the final decision “also applied the border procedure without any corresponding channelling measure appearing”. The finding goes beyond the individual case: the border procedure is a special regime with respect to the accelerated procedure, and its application requires a formal act that “channels” the application into it, a generic reference in the decision not being sufficient.
In the first case (R.G. 13298-1/2026, decree of 21 September 2026) “in the course of the personal interview, elements emerged that are potentially relevant for the special procedural needs and vulnerability of the applicant, connected with reported gender-based violence and a situation of serious psychological suffering, without the Commission having carried out the reassessment prescribed by Articles 20, 21 and 53 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348”. In the second case (R.G. 13384-1/2026, decree of 22 September 2026) the element was in fact already crystallised: in the screening form of 14 August 2026 the applicant had been classified as a “person subjected to abuse/neglect by parents/other relatives” and the special reception and special procedural needs — access to mental health care, assignment of an interpreter trained in communicating with vulnerable applicants, interpreter of the preferred sex — had been expressly identified. Despite this, the determination of 21 August stated that “from the available documentation no signs of vulnerability emerged”, proceeding to apply the accelerated procedure; further elements of psychological suffering that emerged at the interview did not trigger the reassessment.
The twofold unlawfulness — misalignment between determination and decision, failure to reassess vulnerabilities — causes the conditions of Article 68(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 to cease to exist, with the re-expansion of automatic suspension under Article 35-bis(3) of Legislative Decree 25/2008. The further complaints and any question on the merits are absorbed.
On the point of the genericity of a determination that repeats the statutory wording without fitting it to the specific case, see also Trib. Milano 19 September 2026.
Related provisions