According to the Brescia Administrative Court, older special-protection permits can still qualify for conversion into work permits

Legislative changes to Italian immigration law do not necessarily erase transitional rights attached to residence permits already held when the new rules entered into force. The Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy, Brescia division, Section I, explained this in judgment no. 618 of 30 June 2025, concerning the conversion of a special-protection residence permit into a permit for subordinate employment.

The facts: an application rejected under the newer rules

The claimant held a residence permit for special protection issued by the Cremona Police Headquarters on 29 July 2022, expiring on 22 June 2024. On 20 September 2023, he applied to convert that permit into one for subordinate employment. The Questura rejected the application as inadmissible by a simplified decision dated 9 May 2024, notified on 20 May 2024. The stated reason was that the law then in force no longer allowed the conversion.

The applicant challenged the decision, arguing that the Questura had overlooked the transitional provision contained in Article 7(3) of Decree-Law no. 20/2023. The case was not about creating a new entitlement to special protection; it concerned the consequences of legislative reform for someone whose existing permit had already been valid before the relevant cut-off date.

What the TAR actually decided

The court upheld the appeal and annulled the Questura's decision. It interpreted Article 7(3) as preserving the possibility of conversion into a work permit for special-protection permits that were valid when Decree-Law no. 20/2023 came into force on 11 March 2023. Because the claimant's permit expired in June 2024, it was plainly valid on that statutory date.

The panel expressly referred to its earlier judgment no. 172 of 4 March 2024 and to other decisions following the same interpretation. The court stressed an important qualification: conversion remained possible provided that the applicable substantive requirements were satisfied. In other words, the transitional provision removed the blanket statutory obstacle relied on by the Questura; it did not prove that the claimant was automatically entitled to a work permit.

For this case, the court ordered the administration to decide the conversion application again within thirty days of communication of the judgment. The result was annulment of the refusal and a new administrative examination, not direct judicial issuance of a residence card.

Why the date of validity matters

When dealing with older special-protection permits, applicants and advisers need to distinguish at least three separate questions. First, was a qualifying special-protection permit actually in force on 11 March 2023? Second, when and how was the conversion application submitted? Third, did the applicant meet the legal requirements for the proposed work-based permit, including evidence of the employment relationship and any other applicable conditions?

The first question is central to the transitional reasoning in judgment no. 618/2025. A permit obtained later, under a different legal framework, cannot automatically be treated as if it were covered by the same safeguard. The judgment should not be read as a universal rule allowing every special-protection permit, regardless of dates or category, to be converted today.

Practical evidence to assemble

A well-prepared administrative file should include the original permit and renewals, evidence of its validity on the cut-off date, the conversion application with its receipt or protocol number, any employment contract or mandatory employment notification, wage records and the Questura's written response. If the police authority refused to accept an application at the counter, contemporaneous evidence of that interaction may also be relevant, but the legal significance of an informal refusal must be assessed in the specific case.

It is particularly important to request a copy of the administrative file where the Questura relies on a change in the law without discussing transitional provisions. The lawyer should examine the legal basis and timing of the decision, rather than assuming that the same rules govern permits granted in different periods.

Challenging a refusal: remedy and limits

A refusal based exclusively on the purported abolition of conversion may be vulnerable where the special-protection permit falls within the transitional category addressed by the Brescia court. That does not eliminate requirements regarding work or other impediments to residence. Nor does the success of one appeal determine the outcome of later applications subject to different facts and legislation.

Applicants should preserve the date on which they received the decision, verify the competent court and applicable procedural deadlines, and seek advice promptly. An access-to-documents request should not be assumed to suspend the time for judicial review. Where a decision is annulled, the administration must reassess the application in accordance with the judgment's binding reasoning.

The broader lesson

The case demonstrates why immigration legislation must be read together with its transitional clauses. A reform can change what is permitted for future cases while preserving defined legal positions established before its entry into force. The administrative authority must identify which temporal regime applies to the individual application. Legal certainty depends on that discipline: neither an outdated general rule nor a blanket statement about a legislative repeal is a substitute for examining the applicant's actual status.

Verified judicial source: TAR Lombardia, Brescia, Section I, judgment 30 June 2025, no. 618, full text of the decision (in Italian). Legislative reference: Article 7(3), Decree-Law no. 20 of 10 March 2023, converted by Law no. 50 of 5 May 2023.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer admitted to practise before the Italian Court of Cassation
Registered in the Italian Chamber of Deputies' Register of Interest Representatives in the field of immigration
Lobbyist registered in the European Union Transparency Register, no. 280782895721-36, in the field of migration and asylum
ORCID: 0009-0004-7030-0428

Article prepared with the assistance of AI tools under the author's direction, review and editorial responsibility.