sabato 15 novembre 2025

Revocation of EU Long-Term Resident Status: Commentary on the Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy – Fourth Chamber – Hearing of 3 April 2025 (published 28 May 2025)

 Revocation of EU Long-Term Resident Status: Commentary on the Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy – Fourth Chamber – Hearing of 3 April 2025 (published 28 May 2025)

Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo


Abstract

The judgment delivered by the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy, Fourth Chamber, following the hearing held on 3 April 2025 and published on 28 May 2025, offers an opportunity to revisit a central issue in immigration law: the revocation of EU long-term resident status under Article 9 of the Italian Immigration Act. In a context marked by increasingly strict security policies, the decision examines the delicate balance between assessing an individual’s social dangerousness, safeguarding public order, and protecting family ties and the level of integration achieved in Italy.


1. Normative framework and the importance of individual assessment

Article 9 of Legislative Decree No. 286 of 1998 governs the issuance, refusal, and revocation of EU long-term residence permits. Paragraph 4 obliges the administration to consider a range of factors together: criminal convictions, the nature of the conduct, the duration of residence, family ties, and social and professional integration.

Paragraph 7 extends these same criteria to revocation proceedings, requiring a careful balancing of public interests and private rights. The Constitutional Court and the administrative judiciary have consistently rejected any form of automatic mechanism, stressing the need for a concrete, individualised, and proportionate assessment.

Particularly significant is the Constitutional Court’s clarification that the decision must be based on:
“a finding of social dangerousness of the foreign national, with a detailed reasoning based not only on the criminal conviction but on multiple factors”
(Constitutional Court, order of 27 March 2014, No. 58).

Equally relevant is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 3 September 2020 (Joined Cases C-503/19 and C-592/19), which held that a criminal record alone cannot justify the refusal or revocation of long-term resident status without an individualised assessment that considers the nature of the offence, the current threat to public order, the length of residence, and the strength of the foreigner’s ties to the Member State.


2. Factual background and the Court’s reasoning

In the case at hand, the foreign national—long-term resident with established family ties in Italy—challenged the decision revoking his long-term residence permit, arguing that the administration had acted automatically on the basis of his criminal conviction.

The Court, after reviewing the administrative file, found instead that the administration had conducted a comprehensive and multi-layered assessment: analysis of the criminal conduct, examination of the social environment and relationships after completion of the sentence, assessment of legitimate income sources, overall behaviour, and consideration of family ties. The Court concluded that the finding of current social dangerousness was logically reasoned and that, in this specific case, the public interest in safeguarding public order outweighed the applicant’s private interests.

The Court also emphasised that the “comparative balancing” required by EU law had been carried out genuinely and not merely as a formal exercise.


3. Critical analysis in continuity with traditional administrative jurisprudence

The judgment aligns with the traditional case-law that prioritises public-order protection while simultaneously reaffirming the prohibition of automatic mechanisms. On the one hand, it upholds the principle of individualised assessment; on the other, it recognises broad administrative discretion in determining social dangerousness.

From a practical standpoint, the decision reinforces the importance for the defence of presenting a complete, documented picture of the applicant’s integration, economic stability, and family ties—elements that, if significant and current, may substantially influence the outcome of the case.


4. Conclusion

With its judgment of 3 April 2025, published on 28 May 2025, the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy reaffirms the delicate balance between public-order protection and the safeguards afforded to long-term resident foreign nationals, in full continuity with constitutional principles and the guidance of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The decision once again confirms that revoking EU long-term resident status requires detailed and multi-factor reasoning, and that when social dangerousness is concrete and current, it may prevail over family ties and integration considerations.


Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

New on TikTok: Seasonal Residence Permit and Conversion: When the Maximum Period of Stay Cannot Justify a Refusal Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law.” My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo. Today we discuss a recent decision issued by the Regional Administrative Court for the Veneto, published on 13 March 2026, which addresses an important issue in Italian immigration law: the relationship between the seasonal residence permit and its conversion into a subordinate work permit. The case concerns a foreign worker who entered Italy legally with an authorization for seasonal work. After working for several months in the agricultural sector, the worker submitted an application to the Immigration One-Stop Shop to convert the seasonal residence permit into a residence permit for subordinate employment, and he also obtained the required authorization for the conversion. Despite this, the police authority rejected the request for the residence permit, arguing that the worker had already used the maximum period of nine months of stay allowed for seasonal work. However, the Administrative Court considered this decision unlawful. According to the judges, Article 24 of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act clearly states that a seasonal worker who has carried out regular work in Italy for at least three months and receives an offer of subordinate employment may request the conversion of the residence permit. Therefore, the fact that the maximum period of seasonal stay has been reached cannot automatically justify the refusal of the residence permit, especially when the worker has already applied for the conversion and has obtained the necessary authorization. For this reason, the Regional Administrative Court upheld the appeal and annulled the decision of the authorities, emphasizing that the administration should have taken into account the request for conversion and the existence of the legal requirements. This decision is important because it confirms a clear principle: the seasonal residence permit can represent the starting point for a stable employment path in Italy, and the administration must properly assess requests for conversion. Thank you for listening to this episode of the podcast “Immigration Law.” See you soon for another legal insight.

https://ift.tt/esEO5U1