Seasonal Work and Residence Permits: Italy’s Administrative Court Confirms the Limits of “Waiting for Employment”

 Seasonal Work and Residence Permits: Italy’s Administrative Court Confirms the Limits of “Waiting for Employment”

A recent ruling by the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna has once again clarified a sensitive and often misunderstood aspect of Italian immigration law: foreign nationals who enter Italy with a seasonal work visa cannot obtain a residence permit for “waiting for employment” if the seasonal job does not materialise or comes to an end.

In its judgment of 5 February 2026 (no. 217), the Court examined a case involving a non-EU worker who had lawfully entered Italy on the basis of a seasonal work authorisation. After the employment relationship failed to be properly established, the applicant requested a residence permit allowing him to remain in Italy while seeking new employment. The public administration rejected the request, and the decision was challenged before the administrative court.

The ruling is clear and leaves little room for interpretative ambiguity. Italian law draws a sharp distinction between ordinary subordinate employment and seasonal work. While the legal framework allows foreign workers who lose a regular job to remain in Italy for a certain period in order to look for new employment, this possibility is expressly excluded for seasonal workers. The Court stressed that this exclusion is not accidental, but reflects the very nature of seasonal employment, which is temporary, cyclical and strictly linked to specific economic sectors.

According to the judges, when a seasonal employment relationship is not completed in accordance with the prescribed administrative procedure, the underlying authorisation and entry visa lose their legal effectiveness. In such circumstances, there is no legal basis for converting the seasonal status into a different type of residence permit. The “waiting for employment” permit, the Court explained, is not a corrective tool designed to remedy unsuccessful or incomplete procedures, but an exceptional mechanism operating only within the limits explicitly set by the legislature.

The judgment also addresses a recurring argument in immigration litigation: the reliance on ministerial circulars and administrative guidelines. While applicants often invoke these instruments to support more flexible interpretations, the Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of administrative law. Circulars cannot override or extend statutory provisions, particularly where the law is clear and unambiguous. In the field of immigration, where access to and permanence on national territory are strictly regulated, interpretative flexibility cannot come at the expense of legal certainty and procedural coherence.

This decision fits squarely within a growing body of case law confirming a restrictive approach to seasonal work permits. Italian courts have consistently held that seasonal migration cannot be used as an indirect pathway to long-term residence or labour market stabilisation. Any possibility of remaining in Italy beyond the seasonal framework must be grounded in explicit legal provisions, such as those governing the conversion of residence permits, and cannot be achieved through administrative reinterpretation.

Beyond the individual case, the ruling has broader implications. It reinforces the idea that immigration systems depend on the strict observance of procedural rules, especially in areas closely connected to migration planning and quota mechanisms. At a time when labour migration remains a politically and socially sensitive issue across Europe, the judgment underscores the importance of maintaining clear legal boundaries between different forms of authorised stay.

The full text of the judgment is available in the Calaméo publication at the following link:
Clickable link: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775493de16d3a2d
Plain link: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775493de16d3a2d

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo