According to the Milan Administrative Court, a new employer does not automatically preserve a work entry clearance

What happens when an Italian employer obtains authorisation to recruit a non-EU worker but withdraws the offer before the residence process is completed? Can a different employer take over, or can the worker simply apply for a permit for job seeking? The Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy, Third Section, addressed these questions in judgment no. 15 of 7 January 2026. Its answer was restrictive, and understanding the limits of that ruling matters to workers and businesses alike.

The facts behind the decision

An employer requested a nulla osta, the authorisation for the worker's admission to Italy, on 18 March 2024. The authorisation was issued on 31 July 2024. On 10 February 2025, however, that employer informed the authorities that it no longer intended to hire the worker. The Single Immigration Desk revoked the authorisation.

The worker challenged that decision and argued that, even without finalising the residence contract with the original employer, employment by a different business should permit a residence permit for salaried work. Alternatively, the worker requested a permit for awaiting employment (attesa occupazione).

What the court actually held

The TAR dismissed the challenge. Referring to Council of State, Third Section, judgment no. 3158 of 11 April 2025, it held that, absent a supervening impossibility or exceptional circumstances, recruitment must take place with the employer for whom the authorisation was issued. Merely finding an alternative employer did not overcome the missing employment relationship with the original sponsor in this case.

The court also distinguished losing a job from never having started one. Article 22(11) of Legislative Decree no. 286/1998 addresses, within its conditions, the loss of an employment relationship that was actually established and then ended for reasons not attributable to the worker. That mechanism did not automatically cover a prospective worker whose initial employment relationship had never commenced.

Outcome: the challenge was rejected and the revocation upheld. The court nevertheless ordered each side to bear its own litigation expenses, referring to fluctuations in previous case law. It did not establish that a change of employer is impossible in every immigration procedure or under every subsequent legal regime.

Why the distinction matters

The entry authorisation is not a freely transferable entitlement independent of the underlying employment offer. The proposed employer, the contractual arrangements and the statutory procedure are legally significant. If the original employer withdraws before the required stages have been completed, having a new offer does not necessarily entitle the worker to the same permit.

Equally, a job-seeking residence permit should not be confused with permission to enter Italy in order to seek work. The legal protection afforded to someone who loses an existing position cannot simply be presumed to apply to a person whose planned employment never materialised.

Practical steps for workers and employers

Before entry, prospective workers should keep a copy of the authorisation, visa and employment offer and maintain reliable communication with the sponsoring employer. If the employer expresses doubts or withdraws the offer, it is crucial to obtain written confirmation and seek advice before relying on a replacement offer.

After entry, the worker should preserve evidence of attendance at appointments, communications with the Single Immigration Desk and any attempt to complete the residence-contract formalities. If an administrative measure is adopted, it is important to identify the precise grounds, the chronology and whether exceptional circumstances or a supervening impossibility might be relevant.

For employers, withdrawal of an offer is not merely a private contractual matter: it can affect the immigration authorisation granted on the strength of the intended hire. Timely, accurate communication with the authorities and the worker can prevent further complications.

Workers should also distinguish administrative reconsideration from a court challenge. Neither an informal request for review nor a new employment proposal necessarily suspends deadlines or replaces the procedural remedy available against the actual revocation. The competent court and applicable deadlines must be assessed from the documents.

A decision that should not be overgeneralised

The case concerned particular events in 2024–2025 and the law applied by the court in early 2026. Legislative changes, special entry schemes or genuinely exceptional factual circumstances may require a different analysis. This judgment should therefore guide, not replace, an examination of the worker's legal status, the current statutory provisions and the stage reached by the original application.

Its central lesson is that an entry clearance tied to a prospective employer, an existing employment relationship and a job-seeking residence permit are three different legal situations. Confusing them may lead to unsuccessful applications or litigation.

Judgment and verifiable source: TAR Lombardia, Third Section, 7 January 2026, no. 15, President Goso, Reporting Judge Gatti, full judgment. Also cited by the court: Council of State, Third Section, 11 April 2025, no. 3158; Legislative Decree no. 286/1998, Article 22(11).

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer authorised to appear 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
This article was prepared with the assistance of AI tools, under the author's direction, review and editorial responsibility.