martedì 24 febbraio 2026
New on TikTok: Converting a Seasonal Permit: What Are the Legal Requirements? Welcome to a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and today we are discussing a very practical issue: the legal requirements for converting a seasonal residence permit into a standard work permit in Italy. We take inspiration from a recent judgment delivered by the Regional Administrative Court of Tuscany, Second Section, decision no. 329 of 2026, published on 11 February 2026, issued in proceedings registered under general register number 1670 of 2025. The case concerned an agricultural worker whose application to convert his seasonal permit into a subordinate work permit had been rejected because he had not reached the minimum number of working days required by administrative practice. The legal basis is Article 24, paragraph 10, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998. The rule provides that a seasonal worker who has carried out regular work activity in Italy for at least three months, and who has received an offer of subordinate employment—either fixed-term or open-ended—may apply for the conversion of the permit. So the requirements are clear. First, a genuine job offer for subordinate employment. Second, proof of regular work activity for at least three months. However, in the agricultural sector, the concept of “three months” is translated into actual working days. Because agricultural work is often discontinuous and heavily dependent on weather conditions, administrative circulars have established a benchmark: an average of at least thirteen working days per month, for a total of thirty-nine days over the three-month period. The Regional Administrative Court considered this criterion lawful. It held that converting months into working days does not contradict the statute. On the contrary, it reflects the purpose of the law, which is to ensure that the worker has performed real and effective employment before obtaining a more stable residence status. The applicant argued that he failed to reach the required thirty-nine days due to adverse weather conditions. But the Court made an important clarification: such circumstances must be proven rigorously. Generic statements are not enough. Concrete and documented evidence is required. The message is straightforward. The conversion of a seasonal permit is not automatic. It requires real employment, properly documented and consistent with the administrative criteria. And above all, the administrative procedure must be carefully prepared before any litigation begins. In immigration law, substance matters. But evidence matters just as much. Thank you for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you in the next episode of Immigration Law.
Mevsimlik Oturum İzninin Dönüştürülmesi: Mahkeme 39 Günlük Çalışma Şartını Onayladı
Mevsimlik Oturum İzninin Dönüştürülmesi: Mahkeme 39 Günlük Çalışma Şartını Onayladı
Toskana Bölge İdare Mahkemesi tarafından verilen yakın tarihli bir karar, İtalya’da mevsimlik oturum izninin bağlı çalışma iznine dönüştürülmesi için gerekli hukuki şartlara önemli açıklık getirmiştir.
İkinci Daire tarafından 329/2026 sayılı karar ile verilen ve 11 Şubat 2026 tarihinde yayımlanan hüküm, 286 sayılı 1998 tarihli Yasama Kararnamesi’nin 24. maddesinin 10. fıkrasının yorumunu ele almaktadır. Bu hüküm, mevsimlik izinlerin dönüştürülmesine ilişkin temel düzenlemeyi içermektedir.
İtalyan hukukuna göre, mevsimlik işçi iki temel şartı yerine getirirse dönüşüm talebinde bulunabilir: Birincisi, İtalya’da en az üç ay düzenli çalışma faaliyeti yürütmüş olması; ikincisi ise belirli süreli veya belirsiz süreli geçerli bir iş sözleşmesi teklifine sahip olmasıdır.
Uyuşmazlık, özellikle tarım sektöründe “üç ay” şartının nasıl yorumlanacağı üzerinde yoğunlaşmıştır. Tarımsal faaliyetlerin hava koşullarına bağlı ve kesintili olması nedeniyle idari genelgeler somut bir ölçüt belirlemiştir: ay başına ortalama en az on üç çalışma günü ve üç ayda toplam otuz dokuz gün.
Somut olayda işçi bu eşiğe ulaşamamıştır. Kötü hava koşullarının yeterli gün çalışmasını engellediğini ileri sürmüştür. Ancak idare talebi reddetmiş ve konu idari yargıya taşınmıştır.
Mahkeme, ret kararını hukuka uygun bulmuştur. Üç aylık sürenin belirli sayıda çalışma gününe dönüştürülmesinin yasaya aykırı olmadığı, aksine kanunun amacına uygun olduğu belirtilmiştir. Amaç, daha kalıcı bir oturum statüsüne geçmeden önce gerçek ve etkin bir çalışma deneyiminin bulunmasını sağlamaktır.
Karar ayrıca ispat yükünün önemini vurgulamaktadır. Kötü hava koşulları gibi istisnai durumlar somut ve belgeli delillerle kanıtlanmalıdır. Genel beyanlar yeterli değildir.
Kararın tam metni Calaméo’da yayımlanmıştır:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775c59a953c4ae6
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
New on TikTok: Seasonal Permit: If You Don’t Follow the Procedure, You Don’t Get the Permit Welcome to a new episode of the Immigration Law Podcast. My name is Fabio Loscerbo, and I am an Italian immigration lawyer. Today I want to talk about a very practical and often misunderstood issue: the seasonal work residence permit and the obligation to strictly comply with the administrative procedure required by law. The seasonal permit is not a flexible residence title. It is a permit that exists only within a clearly defined administrative framework. The procedure involves the employer, the Immigration Desk at the Prefecture, and only at a later stage the Police Headquarters. Each step must be completed in the correct order. Skipping even one of them can invalidate the entire application. This principle was clearly reaffirmed by a recent decision of the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, First Ter Section, issued in January 2026, in a case registered under general register number 15944 of 2025. In that case, the Police Headquarters declared a first application for a seasonal work residence permit inadmissible because a key procedural step was missing: the signing of the residence contract at the Immigration Desk. The applicant had submitted the request directly to the Police, arguing that the failure to complete the procedure was attributable to the employer. The Court was unequivocal. In the absence of the residence contract, the decision of inadmissibility is a mandatory and bound administrative act. The Police have no discretion. Factors such as social integration, family ties, or even ongoing employment relationships are legally irrelevant if the statutory procedure has not been properly completed. The judgment also clarifies an important additional point. When the issue lies in a delay or inactivity by the Prefecture, the solution is not to bypass the procedure, but to activate the appropriate legal remedies provided by law, such as proceedings against administrative silence. The takeaway is simple and should not be underestimated: with seasonal permits, procedure is substance. Administrative rules are not mere formalities; they are the legal foundation of the right to stay. We will continue to analyse real cases like this, because in immigration law, knowing the rules — and respecting them — truly makes the difference. See you in the next episode of the Immigration Law Podcast.
Sin domicilio estable, sin renovación: la justicia administrativa confirma la línea estricta
Sin domicilio estable, sin renovación: la justicia administrativa confirma la línea estricta
Una reciente sentencia del Tribunal Administrativo Regional del Lacio refuerza una orientación cada vez más rigurosa en materia de renovación de permisos de residencia: la falta de un domicilio real y verificable puede ser motivo suficiente para el rechazo.
Mediante la sentencia n.º 3262 de 20 de febrero de 2026 (procedimiento n.º 16545 de 2022), la Sección Primera Ter confirmó la legalidad de la decisión adoptada por la Jefatura de Policía de Roma, que había denegado la renovación de un permiso de residencia por trabajo por cuenta ajena.
El texto íntegro de la resolución puede consultarse en el siguiente enlace:
Publicación en Calameo: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775ba09cea21301
(URL completo: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775ba09cea21301)
En el caso analizado, la Administración constató que el solicitante no disponía de un domicilio efectivo y comprobable. Las verificaciones realizadas en la dirección declarada concluyeron con un acta de búsquedas infructuosas, lo que llevó a considerar al interesado en situación de falta de localización.
El Tribunal consideró legítimo el rechazo, recordando que la certeza de la situación habitacional constituye un requisito esencial para la concesión o renovación del permiso de residencia. El hecho de contar con un empleo no garantiza automáticamente el mantenimiento del derecho a residir en Italia.
La sentencia adopta además una posición firme respecto a la declaración de direcciones inexactas. Indicar un domicilio que no corresponde a la realidad no es una simple irregularidad formal, sino un elemento determinante que puede justificar el rechazo de la solicitud.
Otro aspecto relevante es la aplicación del principio tempus regit actum: la legalidad del acto administrativo debe evaluarse en función de la situación existente en el momento de su adopción. Por ello, una declaración de alojamiento presentada con posterioridad a la denegación no puede subsanar retroactivamente una carencia anterior.
Esta decisión confirma una tendencia clara en el derecho administrativo italiano: la integración no se limita al empleo. La estabilidad del domicilio, la posibilidad de localizar al interesado y el cumplimiento riguroso de las obligaciones formales forman parte esencial de la evaluación.
Para los ciudadanos extranjeros y para los profesionales del sector jurídico, el mensaje es evidente: antes de presentar una solicitud de renovación, la situación habitacional debe estar perfectamente acreditada y documentada. En derecho de extranjería, los detalles administrativos pueden determinar el resultado final.
Nota de transparencia: este artículo se basa exclusivamente en el texto oficial de la sentencia del Tribunal Administrativo Regional del Lacio, Sección Primera Ter, n.º 3262 de 20 de febrero de 2026, procedimiento n.º 16545 de 2022, tal como se publica en el enlace indicado.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo