A Colombian national challenged a decision of the Territorial Commission of Trieste of 14 July 2026, which had rejected his application for international protection as unfounded pursuant to Article 28-ter of Legislative Decree No 25/2008, following its examination under the accelerated border procedure pursuant to Articles 42(1)(j) and 45(1) of the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR).

The Tribunal of Trieste considered that the procedure followed by the Territorial Commission was incorrect, as the conditions for applying Articles 42(1)(j) and 45(1) of the APR were not met.

The tribunal observed that, in implementation of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, Italy adopted Decree-Law No 100/2026, which entered into force on 12 June 2026. As regards the border procedure, the Decree-Law amended Article 28-bis of Legislative Decree No 25/2008 and introduced the new Articles 28-bis.1 and 28-bis.2. The tribunal pointed out that Article 28-bis, in its sole remaining paragraph, provides that ‘the border and transit zones for the purpose of carrying out the accelerated border procedure within the time limits laid down in Article 28-bis.1 shall be identified by decree of the Minister of the Interior'. It noted that this provision clearly refers to the new border procedure established by the APR, as Article 28-bis.1 expressly refers to Articles 51 and 73 of that Regulation. The tribunal noted that, although Article 28-bis clearly provides that the conduct of the border procedure requires the adoption of a decree by the Minister of the Interior identifying the relevant border and transit zones, no such decree had been adopted at the time of the judgment. It therefore found that, in the present case, the accelerated border procedure had been applied without the conditions laid down in Article 43(1)(a), as referred to in Article 45(1) of the APR, being met. Consequently, the effects resulting from the application of that procedure had to be removed.

The tribunal ruled that the procedure followed in the present case had to be changed, as Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree No 25/2008 was applicable instead of Article 35-ter, which had been applied up to that point. It clarified that the application of the different procedure entailed, at the interim stage, the application of Article 35-bis(3), which provides for the suspension of the enforceability of the contested decision, except in the cases provided for in Article 68(3) of the APR. The tribunal specified that since the accelerated border procedure was not applicable, that exception could not be invoked in the present case. Consequently, it held that the general rule of automatic suspension of the contested decision applied from the lodging of the appeal and throughout the proceedings.

Conclusively, the tribunal ordered the conversion of the proceedings from those under Article 35-ter to those under Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree No 25/2008 and declared that the contested decision was automatically suspended as a result of the lodging of the appeal and for the entire duration of the proceedings.

Note: to access the original judgment users must create an account (free) on Meltingpot.org.