Interim decree (Article 35-ter(2) of Legislative Decree 25/2008) · R.G. 14909-1/2026
Unofficial translation of the SOS Patto summary. The original decision or document is available in Italian only.
Headnote
The ordinary procedure does not resume application where the border procedure determination states, for the country of origin, the first-instance and final recognition rates, verifies the absence of subsequent changes and of categories for which the figure is not representative, and takes into account the health situation recorded at screening, which ruled out special procedural needs; nor where the interview does not reveal any impairment of the capacity to participate. The incompleteness of the information on legal counselling is relevant only if the appeal identifies which allegation or defence entitlement was in fact precluded by it. Exceeding the national four-week time limit for a decision in the border procedure does not in itself entail a switch to the ordinary procedure: the maximum duration is governed by Article 51 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and the national provision attaches no forfeiture consequence to it. The authorisation to remain is refused for lack of fumus as regards the current nature of the risk, after a two-year relocation to another city without further incidents.
The Tribunale di Venezia (judge Dr. Tobia Aceto) rejects the request for interim relief brought by an Algerian national against a rejection decided in the border procedure. The determination of 3 September 2026 had applied Articles 43 and 45 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 on account of the irregular crossing of the external border and the applicability of Article 42(1), point (j). The decree first rules out the resumption of the ordinary procedure, then the authorisation to remain.
The determination stated for Algeria a recognition rate of 8.6% at first instance and 10.3% at the final stage, expressly verifying the absence of subsequent changes and of membership of categories for which the figure would not be representative: it is therefore not an automatic application of the threshold. The same determination had taken into account the health need that emerged at screening, which, however, ruled out special procedural needs; at the interview the applicant had understood the interpreter and made extensive statements, and no impairment of the capacity to participate emerged.
As to the information, the C3 form contained the declaration that the minutes had been read out to him and a copy of the leaflet given. As to free legal counselling, the appeal did not indicate “which specific allegation, document or defence entitlement” had been precluded: the “concrete individual prejudice” needed to give the violation invalidating effect is missing. The complaint concerning the signature of the determination is also unfounded, since it was produced in full with the certification of the signed original.
It is undisputed that the decision was issued after the national four-week time limit from the registration of the application (6 August 2026). In the Tribunal's view, exceeding it does not by itself suffice to convert the procedure: the maximum duration of the border procedure is governed by Article 51 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, whereas the national provision attaches no forfeiture effect.
On the fumus, the account of an attack with a bladed weapon by private individuals is not considered implausible, but the subsequent relocation for about two years to another city, without new incidents, bears on the current nature of the risk and on the possibility of avoiding it; the police stops reported were not relied on as a basis for the application. There is no integration in Italy and no relevant health condition within the meaning of Article 19(2), point (d-bis), of Legislative Decree 286/1998.
It is among the few published decisions of rejection, together with Trib. Firenze 11088/2026. On the prejudice arising from omitted legal counselling it departs from Trib. Roma 39909/2026; on the exceeding of time limits, from Trib. Bologna 15794/2026, which concerns, however, the regulatory time limit of the accelerated procedure.
Related provisions