sabato 24 gennaio 2026

Residence Permits, Criminal Convictions, and Integration: Work Is Not Enough TAR Marche, judgment of December 16, 2025, general register number 684 of 2025

 Residence Permits, Criminal Convictions, and Integration: Work Is Not Enough

TAR Marche, judgment of December 16, 2025, general register number 684 of 2025

The judgment of the Regional Administrative Court for the Marche Region (TAR Marche), Second Section, issued on December 16, 2025, in the proceedings entered under general register number 684 of 2025, has been published on Calameo. The decision addresses a matter of particular relevance in immigration law: the relationship between work-based integration, criminal convictions, and the refusal of a residence permit for employment purposes.

The full text of the judgment is available at the following link:
👉 Calameo publication: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f468fd0c9ded
Direct link: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f468fd0c9ded

The case

The dispute arose from the refusal by the Police Headquarters to issue a residence permit for work to a foreign national whose EU long-term residence permit had previously been revoked. During the administrative proceedings, a criminal conviction intervened, following a plea agreement, for offenses involving domestic abuse and personal injury.

Despite the existence of an employment relationship and the alleged presence of family ties in Italy, the Administration denied the residence permit on the grounds that the applicant posed a risk to public safety, deemed incompatible with the issuance of a residence title.

The principle affirmed by the Court

In its judgment of December 16, 2025, the TAR Marche dismissed the appeal and clearly affirmed that integration cannot be reduced to employment alone. While work is a relevant factor in assessing integration, it is not sufficient in itself to override a finding of social dangerousness, particularly where the criminal conduct affects fundamental interests protected by the legal order, such as personal integrity and family relations.

The Court emphasized that integration must be assessed in a substantive and comprehensive manner, including respect for the social and cultural values of the host country. In this context, conduct within the private and family sphere assumes full legal relevance, especially when the criminal acts occurred precisely within that sphere.

Prohibition of automatism and administrative discretion

Of particular importance is the Court’s interpretation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act. The TAR reiterated that the prohibition of automatic decisions does not translate into a subjective right to obtain a residence permit. The Administration is required to conduct a balancing assessment between the foreign national’s interest in remaining in the country and the community’s interest in public safety. Such an assessment may legitimately result in a refusal.

The presence of family ties is not, in itself, decisive unless those ties fall within the strictly defined categories established by law, nor can they operate as a “shield” against conduct considered to be of serious social concern.

The nature of Article 9, paragraph 9, of the Immigration Consolidated Act

The judgment also provides a clear clarification regarding Article 9, paragraph 9, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998. The possibility of issuing a different type of residence permit after the revocation of an EU long-term residence permit is characterized as a discretionary power of the Administration, not an obligation. The exercise of that power remains subject to verification of all statutory requirements, including the absence of any risk to public safety.

Concluding remarks

The decision of the TAR Marche, judgment of December 16, 2025, general register number 684 of 2025, fits within a line of case law that unequivocally reaffirms a principle often overlooked in public debate: work is not an automatic shield in immigration law. Integration is not merely an economic fact, but a complex process that entails responsibility, compliance with the rules, and adherence to the fundamental values of the legal system.

The full publication of the judgment on Calameo allows legal practitioners, scholars, and professionals in the field of immigration law to examine the decision directly and to fully appreciate its systemic implications.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

alle

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

Iscriviti a: Commenti sul post (Atom)

New on TikTok: Seasonal Work Permit and Right to be Heard: Italian Administrative Court Annuls Police Decision Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and today we discuss an important decision of the Italian administrative court concerning seasonal work permits and the right of a foreign national to participate in the administrative procedure. I am referring to the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court for the Marche Region (TAR Marche), Section II, number 292 of 2026, issued in case number 137 of 2026 and published on March 4, 2026. The case concerns a foreign national who entered Italy legally with a seasonal work visa valid for 270 days. However, once in Italy, he was unable to sign the residence contract with the employer indicated in the work authorization. For this reason, the Police Headquarters declared inadmissible the application for a residence permit for subordinate work – pending employment, arguing that the failure to establish the employment relationship automatically prevented the issuance of a residence permit. The Administrative Court did not agree with this approach. The central issue of the decision concerns the lack of prior notice of rejection required by Article 10-bis of Law No. 241 of 1990, which governs administrative procedures in Italy. According to the court, when a public administration intends to adopt a negative decision, such as the denial of a residence permit, it must first inform the applicant of the reasons that could lead to the rejection of the request. This notice allows the applicant to submit observations or additional documents in order to defend their position. In this case, that procedural guarantee was not respected. The declaration of inadmissibility had, in practice, the same effect as a denial of the residence permit, but without allowing the applicant to participate in the administrative process and provide explanations. For this reason, the TAR Marche upheld the appeal and annulled the decision of the Police Headquarters. At the same time, the court clarified that it did not rule on the merits of the residence permit itself. The administration must now re-examine the case following the correct procedural rules. This judgment confirms an important principle of administrative law: even in immigration procedures, the right to participate in the administrative process and to be heard before a negative decision is taken is a fundamental guarantee. Thank you for listening to this episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and I will see you in the next episode.

https://ift.tt/xoPJkCG