domenica 18 gennaio 2026

Complementary Protection and Integration: the Bologna Court Decree of 5 December 2025 Reaffirms the Centrality of Fundamental Rights

 Complementary Protection and Integration: the Bologna Court Decree of 5 December 2025 Reaffirms the Centrality of Fundamental Rights

With the decree issued on 5 December 2025, the Tribunale ordinario di Bologna, Specialised Section for Immigration, International Protection and Free Movement of EU Citizens, takes a clear and well-reasoned stance on one of the most sensitive issues in contemporary immigration law: complementary protection and its relationship with the social, occupational and family integration of third-country nationals, within the legal framework following Decree-Law No. 20/2023, converted into Law No. 50/2023.

The Bologna Court firmly rejects any restrictive interpretation of the 2023 reform, stating that the legislative changes have not undermined the core of the protection deriving from Italy’s constitutional and international obligations. In particular, the Court reaffirms that complementary protection remains the instrument through which constitutional asylum, as enshrined in Article 10(3) of the Italian Constitution, and the protection of private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights continue to be effectively implemented.

The decree is noteworthy for the breadth and depth of its legal reasoning. The Court reconstructs the current framework of Article 19 of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998, clarifying that, even after the 2023 amendments, removal or expulsion remains prohibited whenever it would result in a serious violation of fundamental rights. In this perspective, integration is not treated as an automatic or purely formal requirement, but as a substantive element to be assessed concretely, through a genuine comparative evaluation between the life established in Italy and the conditions the person would face in the country of origin.

Of particular relevance is the Court’s reliance on the most recent case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which is used to confirm that social, occupational and family rootedness may, in itself, justify the granting of complementary protection where removal would entail a form of uprooting incompatible with a minimum standard of a dignified life. The reasoning reflects a constitutionally oriented approach, far removed from emergency-driven or purely security-based readings of immigration law.

The importance of this decision therefore extends beyond the individual case at hand. It stands as a significant point of reference for judges, lawyers and legal practitioners, offering a coherent reconstruction of the current criteria governing complementary protection and reaffirming that effective integration remains a central parameter in balancing public interests with the fundamental rights of the individual.

The full text of the decree is available in the Calameo publication at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797755d45c56b466f

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

alle

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

Iscriviti a: Commenti sul post (Atom)

New on TikTok: Residence permit denied by the Police but granted by the Court: a job and real integration are enough for special protection Welcome to a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. My name is lawyer Fabio Loscerbo, and today we address a very practical issue: what happens when the Police deny a residence permit, but the Court overturns that decision. We are talking about a judgment of the Court of Bologna, case number 591 of 2025, concerning the recognition of special protection . The Police had denied the permit, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient integration. This is a very common reasoning in practice: authorities often expect an almost “perfect” level of integration, as if a foreign national had to prove complete and definitive social inclusion. The Court takes a different approach, one that is more consistent with the law and recent case law. It clearly states that full integration is not required. What matters is a serious and concrete path of integration, even if it is still ongoing. In this case, the applicant had a stable job, an income, had attended language courses, and had been living in Italy for several years. All these elements, taken together, show real social integration. At this point, a key legal principle comes into play: the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This concept does not only concern family ties, but also includes social relationships, work, and the life a person builds over time. The Court states that removing a person in such circumstances would mean uprooting them and seriously affecting their fundamental rights. It also adds an important point: if there are no concerns related to public safety or public order, the State’s interest in expulsion becomes weak. The outcome is clear: the Court recognizes the right to a residence permit for special protection, valid for two years, renewable and convertible into a work permit . The message of this decision is straightforward: if a person works, integrates, and builds a life in Italy, this reality cannot be ignored. And this is exactly where the future of immigration law will increasingly be decided. Thank you for listening, and see you soon for a new episode of Immigration Law.

https://ift.tt/r7DH6df