New on TikTok: EU Long-Term Residence Permit: Without Sufficient Income the Application Can Be Refused Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. My name is Fabio Loscerbo, immigration lawyer. The Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont confirmed the refusal of an EU long-term residence permit because the applicant’s income was below the amount of the social allowance. The ruling confirms a clear principle: without the minimum income requirement, the long-term residence permit cannot be granted.

https://ift.tt/QBbMzjp

Ascolta "Segnalazione SIS e annullamento del visto il TAR Lazio esclude l’automatismo" su Spreaker.

New on TikTok: مرسوم التدفقات: بدون عقد الإقامة تصبح طلبات تصريح الإقامة غير مقبولة مرحباً بكم في حلقة جديدة من بودكاست «قانون الهجرة». أنا المحامي فابيو لوتشيربو، واليوم سنتحدث عن قرار حديث صادر عن المحكمة الإدارية الإقليمية في لاتسيو – القسم الأول مكرر، الحكم رقم 4151 بتاريخ 5 مارس 2026، في القضية رقم R.G. 1535 لسنة 2026. تتعلق القضية بعامل أجنبي دخل إلى إيطاليا بشكل قانوني بتأشيرة صادرة في إطار نظام “مرسوم التدفقات” للعمل الموسمي. لكن بعد دخوله إلى الأراضي الإيطالية، لم يتم استكمال إحدى الخطوات الأساسية التي يفرضها القانون، وهي توقيع عقد الإقامة لدى المكتب الموحد للهجرة. وبسبب غياب هذه الخطوة، قررت شرطة الهجرة في روما اعتبار طلب الحصول على تصريح إقامة للعمل غير مقبول. وفي اليوم نفسه أصدرت محافظة روما أيضاً قراراً بالطرد من الأراضي الإيطالية بسبب عدم وجود تصريح إقامة صالح. المحكمة الإدارية درست المسألتين بشكل منفصل. فيما يتعلق بقرار الطرد، أعلنت المحكمة عدم اختصاصها القضائي، مؤكدة أن النظر في هذا النوع من القرارات يعود إلى القاضي العادي، لأن الأمر يتعلق بحقوق شخصية للأجنبي وفقاً لقانون الهجرة الإيطالي. أما بخصوص رفض تصريح الإقامة، فقد اعتبرت المحكمة أن قرار الإدارة كان مشروعاً. وأوضح القضاة أن القانون واضح في هذا المجال: العامل الأجنبي الذي يدخل إيطاليا بناءً على تصريح عمل يجب عليه الحضور إلى المكتب الموحد للهجرة وتوقيع عقد الإقامة مع صاحب العمل. وفقط بعد إتمام هذه الخطوة يمكن بدء الإجراءات الإدارية للحصول على تصريح الإقامة. وفي هذه القضية، لم يتم استكمال هذه الخطوة مطلقاً. ولذلك اعتبرت المحكمة أن قرار الإدارة كان قراراً إلزامياً ومقيداً بالقانون وفقاً لما ينص عليه قانون الهجرة الإيطالي ولوائحه التنفيذية. هذه القضية تذكرنا بمبدأ مهم: الدخول إلى إيطاليا في إطار نظام “مرسوم التدفقات” لا يكفي وحده للحصول على تصريح إقامة. بل يجب استكمال جميع الإجراءات الإدارية التي ينص عليها القانون. شكراً لكم على الاستماع إلى هذه الحلقة من بودكاست «قانون الهجرة». أنا المحامي فابيو لوتشيربو، ونلتقي في الحلقة القادمة. ⚖️

https://ift.tt/M7HvbuU

Ascolta "Sentenza TAR Emilia Romagna: la Questura deve stampare il permesso stagionale, non può archiviarlo" su Spreaker.

Revocation of the EU Long-Term Residence Permit Between Public Security Assessment and the Obligation to Grant an Alternative Residence Status: Commentary on TAR Emilia-Romagna, First Section, 26 February 2026, No. 334

 Revocation of the EU Long-Term Residence Permit Between Public Security Assessment and the Obligation to Grant an Alternative Residence Status: Commentary on TAR Emilia-Romagna, First Section, 26 February 2026, No. 334

The judgment delivered by the Regional Administrative Court for Emilia-Romagna (First Section) on 26 February 2026, No. 334 (case registered under general docket number 58 of 2026), provides an important opportunity to examine the legal framework governing the revocation of the EU long-term residence permit under Article 9 of Legislative Decree No. 286 of 25 July 1998 (Italian Immigration Consolidated Act).

The full text of the decision is available at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775aec2d43b9d32

The case originated from a decision of the Police Headquarters of Bologna revoking an EU long-term residence permit on the basis of a finding of social dangerousness, grounded in final criminal convictions for particularly serious offences. The applicant challenged the measure, arguing, inter alia, that the revocation was de facto automatic and that the administration had failed to properly assess his social, family and professional integration in Italy.

The Court addressed the structure of Article 9 of the Immigration Act. Paragraph 4 provides that the EU long-term residence permit cannot be granted to foreigners who are considered a threat to public order or State security. By virtue of the combined effect of paragraphs 4 and 7, the permit may also be revoked where the relevant conditions are no longer met. However, the provision requires a substantive assessment: the authority must consider the duration of lawful residence in Italy and the level of social, family and professional integration of the person concerned.

The judgment aligns with consolidated case law holding that revocation of long-term residence status cannot be based on an automatic link between criminal conviction and loss of status. A current and individualized assessment of dangerousness is required. In the present case, the Court found that the administration had carried out such an assessment, examining the seriousness of the offences, the impact on fundamental rights, and the applicant’s overall conduct. The evaluation was deemed neither illogical nor unreasonable, and therefore the revocation was upheld as lawful in that respect.

The most significant aspect of the ruling concerns Article 9, paragraph 9, of the Immigration Act. This provision states that where a long-term EU residence permit is revoked and expulsion is not ordered, the foreign national must be granted another type of residence permit in accordance with the Immigration Act. The norm embodies a principle of legal continuity: the loss of the “enhanced” long-term status does not automatically entail irregular stay.

In the case at hand, the Police Authority failed to carry out any assessment regarding the possible issuance of an alternative residence permit. The Court therefore partially upheld the appeal, annulling the decision insofar as it omitted consideration of this statutory obligation. The administration is now required to re-examine the applicant’s position and to assess, in light of his current circumstances, whether the requirements for a different residence permit are met.

The judgment is noteworthy for its balanced approach. On the one hand, it reaffirms the administration’s discretionary power to protect public order through a properly reasoned and individualized dangerousness assessment. On the other, it underscores that such discretion must operate within the full framework of statutory guarantees. Revocation cannot create a legal vacuum; if expulsion is not imposed, a new legal status must be evaluated.

The decision thus reinforces a core principle of the rule of law in immigration matters: administrative discretion must always be exercised in compliance with proportionality, procedural completeness, and substantive legality.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: 0009-0004-7030-0428

TAR Emilia-Romagna: Police Headquarters Must Issue Seasonal Residence Permit, Cannot Simply Archive It

 TAR Emilia-Romagna: Police Headquarters Must Issue Seasonal Residence Permit, Cannot Simply Archive It

A significant ruling by the Regional Administrative Tribunal (TAR) of Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on 27 February 2026 (case registered under general register number 1845 of 2025), clarifies an important principle in Italian immigration law: administrative delay cannot justify the archiving of a lawful application for a seasonal residence permit.

The full judgment is available here:
https://www.calameo.com/books/00807977501d9892e7353

The case concerned a foreign national who had lawfully entered Italy with a seasonal work visa, obtained the necessary work authorization, signed the employment contract, and duly submitted the application for a seasonal residence permit. Despite compliance with all legal requirements, the Police Headquarters failed to proceed with the physical issuance of the permit card and later archived the application.

The administration justified its decision by referring to “short timeframes” between the administrative processing stage and the conclusion of the procedure, arguing that it had not been possible to print the residence permit in time.

The TAR rejected this reasoning. According to the Court, a delay attributable to the administration cannot operate to the detriment of the applicant. Where the substantive and formal requirements for issuing the permit are met, organizational inefficiencies cannot serve as a lawful basis for archiving the request.

Beyond the immediate procedural issue, the ruling has broader implications. The Court noted that the failure to issue the seasonal permit may have directly affected the applicant’s ability to apply for its conversion into a standard subordinate employment permit under Article 24 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998.

While the Tribunal clarified that conversion cannot be assessed ex officio and must be requested through a specific application, it emphasized that the administration must first fulfill its obligation to issue the seasonal permit. Only thereafter can any evaluation concerning conversion take place.

The judgment reaffirms a core principle of administrative law: public inefficiency cannot become an indirect sanction against a foreign worker who has complied with all legal obligations. In the field of immigration law—where procedural timing often determines the difference between lawful stay and irregularity—such clarification is particularly significant.

This decision may serve as an important precedent in future disputes concerning delays in the issuance of residence permits and their impact on the continuity of lawful employment in Italy.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo