Interim decree (Article 35-ter(4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · N.R.G. 13922-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The assessment entrusted to the judge at the interim stage is the natural forum for reviewing whether the border procedure was correctly activated and whether the information obligations were fully complied with, and the applicant, whose time for preparing a defence is severely curtailed, cannot be arbitrarily burdened with pleading requirements. Where there is no proof that the information required by Articles 8(2) and 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 was provided in due time — here instead handed over “many days after” registration — the applicant's statements are not “fully informed”: the statistical criterion of Article 42(1), point (j), cannot be anchored in the abstract datum alone, but must be weighed against the personal history. A further ground of illegality stems from the presidential determination classifying the applicant as a potential victim of trafficking and as a person exposed to serious psychological, physical and sexual violence: adequate medical and psychological support is invoked in an apodictic manner, no document proves that it was actually provided, and the hearing record shows an Arabic-language interpreter, a language foreign to the applicant. Articles 21(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and 23(1) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 require constant review of participatory guarantees and of accelerated procedural choices where vulnerability deepens in the course of the proceedings. Finally, the application registered in Agrigento on 18/8/2026 predates the entry into force of the Ministerial Decree of 21 July 2026 on the designated places, so that the border procedure is excluded also from the intertemporal standpoint. The Tribunal finds that the conditions for the procedure are not met, converts the procedure from Article 35-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008 to Article 35-bis of the same decree, recognises the applicant's right to remain in the national territory and orders the immediate issue of the document under Article 4(4) of Legislative Decree 142/2015, with automatic cessation of every imposed or restrictive measure.
The Tribunal of Venice (judge Alessia Capriuoli) finds that the conditions for the accelerated border procedure are not met, converts the procedure from Article 35-ter of Legislative Decree 25/2008 to Article 35-bis of the same decree, declares the applicant's right to remain in the territory and orders the issue of the document under Article 4(4) of Legislative Decree 142/2015, with automatic cessation of every imposed measure. The decision of the Commissione territoriale of Padua of 4 September 2026 had been taken in the border procedure under Article 43(1), point (a), and Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, the applicant being a Pakistani national whose application was registered in Agrigento on 18 August 2026.
The decree opens with an explicit position on its scope: the interim stage is “the natural forum” for reviewing the correct activation of the border procedure and compliance with the information obligations, since the decision affects the applicant's legal position and “future destiny in life”. The extremely short time for preparing a defence prevents the applicant from being burdened with pleading requirements: under Article 35-ter(3) and (4) of Legislative Decree 25/2008, it is the administration that must supply the “complete body of knowledge” already at the interim stage.
The information form was handed over “many days after” registration, in breach of Articles 8(2) and 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The omission is not merely formal: it renders the statements “not fully informed”, so that the statistical criterion of Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 — which requires “comparison with the personal history” and not the abstract datum alone — lacks the necessary anchor. The Tribunal places the breach within the “constructive dialogue” between authority and individual (CJEU, 14 May 2020, C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU).
In the presidential determination the applicant is classified as a potential victim of trafficking and as subject to serious psychological, physical and sexual violence. The reference to the reception centre's “medical and psychological support” is “absolutely apodictic” and is not proved by any document; the hearing record shows an Arabic-language interpreter, a language foreign to the applicant, and the applicant alleged visible wounds suffered in Libya, with supporting documentation. Articles 21(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and 23(1) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 require “constant review” of the participatory guarantees and of the accelerated procedural choices when vulnerability emerges in the course of the procedure: a condition disregarded here, also in light of the post-traumatic stress disorder mentioned in Article 24 of the Reception Conditions Directive.
The application was registered on 18 August 2026, when the Ministerial Decree of 21 July 2026 had not yet entered into force: the communication provided for by Article 54 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, to which the Ministerial Decree is linked, “is by no means merely formal, but rests on a careful and weighed assessment of the places equipped with all the adequate structures and competences”. The transfer of persons to places not designated under Article 54 “before the entry into force of the Ministerial Decree automatically gives rise to full authorisation to enter the national territory” (referring to Cass. no. 18531/2026 on the intertemporal relevance of the expression of the wish to apply). The decision follows the line already traced by Trib. Venice 13622 and 13498 on defects in the information provided and on the 20% threshold, adding a novel passage on the duty to reassess the special guarantees owed to vulnerability in the course of the procedure.
Related provisions