venerdì 10 aprile 2026

New on TikTok: Silence de l’administration et permis de séjour pour travailleur à distance : quand le recours débloque la procédure Bienvenue dans un nouvel épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Je suis l’avocat Fabio Loscerbo. Aujourd’hui, nous analysons une décision importante du Tribunal administratif régional pour l’Émilie-Romagne, section première, affaire numéro ruolo generale 235 de 2026, publiée le 10 avril 2026. L’affaire concerne un ressortissant étranger entré en Italie avec un visa pour travail à distance, le remote worker, qui avait présenté une demande de permis de séjour en utilisant le kit postal, conformément aux indications de la Questure. Le point central est le suivant : malgré le dépôt régulier de la demande et une mise en demeure formelle, l’administration est restée totalement silencieuse. Aucun rendez-vous, aucune demande de pièces complémentaires, aucune décision. Face à cette inertie, le requérant a introduit un recours pour faire constater le silence de l’administration et obtenir l’obligation de conclure la procédure. Ce n’est qu’après la notification du recours que l’administration a agi, en demandant des documents complémentaires et en lançant enfin l’instruction de la demande. Cela a conduit à une extinction du litige pour disparition de l’objet, mais le Tribunal a tout de même condamné l’administration aux dépens, en reconnaissant une « défaite virtuelle ». Le principe est clair : l’administration ne peut pas rester inactive. Même en droit de l’immigration, le silence constitue une violation des obligations procédurales. Et surtout, cette décision confirme une réalité bien connue des praticiens : dans de nombreux cas, c’est précisément le recours juridictionnel qui contraint l’administration à agir. En conclusion, cette décision renforce la protection des étrangers face à l’inertie administrative et souligne l’importance du recours contre le silence comme instrument effectif de garantie des droits. Merci de votre écoute et à bientôt pour un nouvel épisode de Droit de l’Immigration.

https://ift.tt/3CYxfD5
alle
Etichette: , ,

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

Iscriviti a: Commenti sul post (Atom)

New on TikTok: Residence Permit Conversion: the opinion is not decisive and integration is not always required Welcome to a new episode of the Immigration Law Podcast. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo. Today we examine a judgment of the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, First Ter Section, published on 23 February 2026, concerning a case registered under general docket number 4952 of 2025. This decision deals with a very practical issue, and—let’s be clear—one that is often mishandled by the authorities: the conversion of a residence permit for minors into a work permit. The case concerns a young foreign national whose application for conversion was rejected by the Police Headquarters. According to the administration, he had not participated in a social integration program for at least two years, and he had not obtained the required opinion under Article 32 of the Italian Immigration Act. The Court intervenes decisively and clarifies the legal framework. First point: there is not just one pathway for obtaining this type of conversion. The law provides two distinct alternatives. On the one hand, minors who are entrusted or under guardianship; on the other, minors who have participated in a social integration program for at least two years. And this is exactly where the administration made its mistake: it applied the two-year integration requirement to a situation where it was not legally required. Second point, even more relevant in practice: the opinion of the Committee for Foreign Minors is mandatory, but it is not binding. And most importantly, it cannot automatically justify a refusal. The Court makes this very clear: any delay or failure in issuing that opinion cannot be attributed to the applicant. On the contrary, it is the administration that has the duty to obtain it ex officio as part of the administrative procedure. In this case, the applicant had also demonstrated a genuine path of integration, including lawful employment and updated supporting documentation. Despite this, the administration relied on a rigid and formalistic interpretation of the law. And this is the core message of the judgment: immigration law cannot be applied as a mere bureaucratic mechanism. The authorities must assess each case concretely, exercising their discretion according to principles of reasonableness and proportionality. As a result, the Court upheld the appeal, annulled the refusal, and ordered the administration to re-examine the case, acquire the required opinion, and verify whether the conditions for granting a residence permit are met—even under a different legal basis. This decision reaffirms a fundamental principle: individuals must not bear the consequences of administrative inefficiencies. It is the administration that must ensure the proper functioning of the procedure, in compliance with the law. And when it fails to do so, the court steps in. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Immigration Law Podcast. See you next time.

https://ift.tt/Rvwdgy8