Permiso de residencia por búsqueda de empleo: no siempre es posible

 

 

Italian Court: Schengen Alert Alone Cannot Justify Refusing a Work Visa

A significant ruling from the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio is likely to influence how Italian authorities handle visa applications involving alerts in the Schengen Information System (SIS). In a judgment published on 9 June 2026, the court held that the mere existence of an SIS alert is not sufficient to justify refusing an entry visa unless the applicant is informed of the specific reasons underlying the objection.

The case concerned a foreign national who had applied for an Italian work visa through the Italian Consulate in Casablanca. His application was rejected because Austrian authorities had entered an alert against him in the Schengen Information System. However, after the refusal was issued, Austria removed the alert. Despite this development, the Italian Consulate declined to reopen the application, arguing that procedural constraints prevented any further action.

The Regional Administrative Court rejected that approach.

Relying on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the judges reaffirmed that when a Member State refuses a visa because another Member State has raised an objection, the applicant must be informed not only of the existence of the objection but also of the identity of the Member State responsible and the specific grounds supporting the refusal. Without this information, the applicant is deprived of the opportunity to exercise an effective right of defence.

The judgment is particularly noteworthy because it extends these procedural guarantees beyond uniform Schengen visas to national work visas. According to the court, there is no convincing legal basis for providing lower standards of procedural protection simply because the application concerns a national visa rather than a short-stay Schengen visa.

The court also relied on the recent decision of the Italian Constitutional Court, which clarified that under the current European legal framework governing the Schengen Information System, an SIS alert does not automatically prevent the issuance of a residence permit or other immigration status. Instead, national authorities must carry out an individual assessment to determine whether the person genuinely represents a threat to public order or public security.

This aspect of the ruling may prove to be its most important contribution. For many years, SIS alerts have often been treated in practice as almost automatic grounds for refusing visas or residence permits. The Lazio Administrative Court makes clear that this approach is incompatible with both European Union law and fundamental principles of administrative fairness. Information contained in European databases supports administrative decision-making but cannot replace the authority's obligation to investigate the facts and provide adequate reasoning.

The court further criticised the Italian administration for failing to conduct any meaningful investigation after learning that the Austrian alert had been deleted. Rather than contacting the Austrian authorities or reassessing the applicant's position, the Consulate relied exclusively on the information displayed in its electronic visa system. Such conduct, the judges held, fell short of the procedural standards required by both Italian and European law.

The ruling reinforces an increasingly important principle within European immigration law: digital information systems are instruments of administrative cooperation, not mechanisms for automatic decision-making. Even where security considerations are involved, immigration authorities remain under a legal duty to examine each individual case, verify the relevant facts and provide applicants with sufficient reasons to challenge adverse decisions before an independent court.

As European migration governance becomes increasingly dependent on interconnected databases and information-sharing mechanisms, the judgment offers an important reminder that technological efficiency cannot replace procedural fairness. Transparency, effective judicial protection and individual assessment remain essential safeguards within the European rule of law.

---

Fabio Loscerbo, Attorney at Law

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9848-4558

Travail saisonnier : pas de permis de recherche d’emploi sans contrat de travail

 

 

The Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit After Its Expiration: The Primacy of Substantive Requirements and the Protection of Integration in the Judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy, Fourth Section, 8 June 2026, No. 2962 (Case No. 2106/2024)

The conversion of a seasonal residence permit into a residence permit for subordinate employment is one of the legal mechanisms through which the Italian legislature seeks to facilitate the stabilization of foreign workers who have already demonstrated their ability to integrate into the national labour market. From this perspective, the judgment delivered by the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy (TAR Lombardia), Fourth Section, No. 2962 of 8 June 2026, in Case No. 2106/2024, is of particular interest, as it addresses the significance of the expiration of a residence permit in the context of its conversion.

The dispute originated from the revocation of an authorization for the conversion of a seasonal residence permit into a work permit for subordinate employment. The administration considered the application inadmissible because it had been submitted after the expiration of the original permit. However, the applicant demonstrated that, although the permit was formally valid until 30 September 2023, it had only been physically delivered by the authorities on 16 October 2023, after its expiration date.

The decision is significant because it follows a judicial approach that places greater emphasis on substantive considerations than on purely formal aspects of administrative procedures. The Court relied on the case law of the Council of State, according to which no statutory provision requires a residence permit to remain valid at the time a conversion request is submitted. Rather, the decisive issue is whether the substantive conditions necessary for granting the new permit are satisfied.

The judgment highlights the socio-economic function of the conversion mechanism. The purpose of the legislation is not to sanction foreign nationals for procedural irregularities arising from administrative delays but to allow the continued lawful residence of individuals who have established a genuine connection with the Italian labour market. In this context, the existence of an employment contract, the availability of adequate means of support, and effective participation in the productive and social fabric of the country are considerably more relevant than the mere formal expiration of the original permit.

Particularly noteworthy is the Court's finding that the delay in delivering the residence permit was entirely attributable to the administration. From this premise, the Court derives a broader principle according to which foreign nationals should not suffer adverse consequences resulting from inefficiencies or delays within public administration. This conclusion is fully consistent with the constitutional principles of good administration and impartiality enshrined in Article 97 of the Italian Constitution.

The judgment also reflects a broader evolution within Italian immigration law, characterized by increasing attention to concrete indicators of integration. The references made by the Court to stable employment, economic self-sufficiency, and participation in the socio-economic life of the country demonstrate that administrative assessments should focus on the applicant's actual circumstances rather than on purely documentary or procedural elements. Integration therefore emerges as a legally relevant criterion in evaluating the position of foreign nationals seeking to regularize their status.

The decision of the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy ultimately confirms a substantive interpretation of Article 24 of Legislative Decree No. 286 of 1998. According to this interpretation, the mere expiration of a seasonal residence permit cannot, in itself, justify the rejection of a conversion request. What truly matters is the verification of the conditions demonstrating the applicant's effective labour-market integration and the existence of the legal requirements for the issuance of a residence permit for subordinate employment. In this respect, the judgment strengthens a judicial trend that prioritizes legitimate expectations, administrative reasonableness, and the recognition of genuine integration pathways developed within Italian society.

Fabio Loscerbo, Attorney-at-Law
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

Sources and Verification Statement: This article is based on the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy (TAR Lombardia), Fourth Section, No. 2962/2026, published on 8 June 2026, Case No. 2106/2024. All legal references and factual elements have been verified against the text of the decision.