According to the Rome Administrative Court, family reunification visa disputes belong before the ordinary courts

A visa refusal is not always challenged before the same judge. In judgment no. 10848 of 11 June 2026, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, Fifth Quater Section, held that a dispute over a visa for family reasons, linked to the rights of a family member of an Italian or EU citizen, fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts rather than the administrative courts. The distinction matters because filing before the wrong court can jeopardise timely and effective protection.

The facts before the judge

The applicant was a Kosovo national whose request for a family visa had been rejected by the Italian Embassy in Pristina on 5 April 2026. He sought to join his mother, who was an Italian citizen, and other relatives living in Italy. The applicant referred to the family rights protected by Legislative Decree 30/2007 and the Immigration Consolidated Act, Legislative Decree 286/1998. The administration objected that the administrative judge lacked jurisdiction.

The legal reasoning

The TAR accepted the jurisdictional objection. Article 30(6) of Legislative Decree 286/1998 assigns disputes concerning family reunification clearance, residence permits for family reasons and other measures affecting family unity to the ordinary judiciary. Article 8 of Legislative Decree 30/2007 likewise governs the judicial protection of rights enjoyed by relatives of EU citizens. The substance of the right invoked, rather than the mere label 'visa refusal', determines which court can hear the dispute.

For this reason, the court declared that it lacked jurisdiction and identified the ordinary judiciary as competent. It did not decide whether the consulate should have issued the visa. The procedural outcome must not be mistaken for an award of family reunification or for a finding that the refusal was justified.

Practical implications

Before appealing an Italian visa refusal, practitioners should establish whether the application concerns tourism, study, employment or a protected family relationship. Family-based cases require a close examination of the legal relationship, the nationality and residence of the family member in Italy, and the specific legal provisions relied upon. A challenge should describe the underlying family right and identify the competent court accordingly.

The judgment also referred to Article 11 of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure, which protects the substantive and procedural effects of an action when a case is transferred to the correct judicial system within the applicable conditions and time limits. This is not a licence to ignore limitation periods or to file an unconsidered appeal. The original refusal, its notification date, the family evidence and the relevant statutory route must be checked immediately.

Conclusion

Family migration disputes are not simply another form of consular discretion. When the measure concerns the right to family unity, jurisdiction reflects the nature of the protected position. This judgment is a reminder that choosing the correct judge is part of the substance of effective legal protection.

Decision: TAR Lazio, Rome, Section V-quater, 11 June 2026, no. 10848. Full judgment.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer authorised to appear before the Italian Court of Cassation (Avvocato Cassazionista)
Registered in the Chamber of Deputies' Register of Interest Representatives in the field of Immigration
Lobbyist registered in the European Union Transparency Register under 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.