martedì 16 dicembre 2025

Title: Complementary Protection after the Cutro Decree: what it really means

 Title: Complementary Protection after the Cutro Decree: what it really means


Welcome to a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast.
My name is Avv. Fabio Loscerbo.

Today we talk about an important decision of the Court of Bologna, issued on 5 December 2025, concerning complementary protection.

After the Cutro Decree, many people thought that this type of protection had been cancelled. The Court clearly explains that this is not true. Complementary protection still exists.

In simple words, the Italian State must continue to respect the fundamental rights of foreign nationals. One of these rights is the right to private life, meaning the right to continue a life built in Italy, with work, relationships and stability.

The law has changed, but the protection has not disappeared. What changed is that there are no more rigid rules. Now the judge must look at each personal situation, case by case.

In the case decided by the Court of Bologna, work was very important. Not only because the person had an income, but because work helps people build relationships, friendships and a normal life in Italy.

But attention: complementary protection is not automatic and it is not an amnesty. If there are serious problems related to public order or security, protection can be refused.

The message is clear: if a person has built a real and regular life in Italy, the law can protect that life. But every case must be carefully evaluated.

Thank you for listening.
My name is Avv. Fabio Loscerbo, and this was Immigration Law.

alle Nessun commento:

Complementary Protection in the Legal Framework Following Decree-Law No. 20/2023: Continuity of the Protection of Private Life under Article 8 ECHR and the Function of Article 5, Paragraph 6, of the Consolidated Immigration Act


Complementary Protection in the Legal Framework Following Decree-Law No. 20/2023: Continuity of the Protection of Private Life under Article 8 ECHR and the Function of Article 5, Paragraph 6, of the Consolidated Immigration Act

With reference to the full publication of the decree available on Calameo:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775ebab26d3b1ae

Introduction

This contribution analyses the decree issued by the Ordinary Court of Bologna, Specialised Section for Immigration, International Protection and Free Movement of EU Citizens, on 5 December 2025 in proceedings no. R.G. 10860/2024. The decision provides a structured and in-depth examination of complementary protection within the legal framework resulting from the amendments introduced by Decree-Law No. 20/2023, converted with amendments by Law No. 50/2023.

The ruling is of particular relevance as it addresses one of the most controversial issues arising from the new legislative framework: the fate of the protection of private and family life following the repeal of the parameters expressly set out in Article 19, paragraph 1.1, of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998 in its previous formulation.

The full text of the decree is available at the following publication:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775ebab26d3b1ae

The 2023 Reform and the Persistence of Conventional Protection

The Court clarifies that the 2023 legislative intervention did not affect the core of the prohibition of refoulement, nor did it eliminate the protection of private and family life as a foundation of complementary protection, insofar as it constitutes a subjective right rooted in constitutional and international obligations.

The reasoning highlights the continued reference, within Article 19 of the Consolidated Immigration Act, to Article 5, paragraph 6, of the same statute, which functions as a closing provision of the system and as a channel for incorporating obligations arising from the European Convention on Human Rights. From this perspective, the repeal of the typified statutory criteria does not amount to the suppression of protection, but rather marks the transition from a rigid regulatory framework to an elastic clause.

Complementary Protection and the Role of Supreme Court Case Law

The decision consciously aligns itself with the most recent case law of the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di cassazione), which has reaffirmed that complementary protection continues to apply also in relation to the private and family life of the foreign national, as an expression of obligations that prevail over ordinary legislation.

The Court adopts the view that the 2023 reform affected the normative typicity of the institute, but not its function of safeguarding fundamental rights, thereby reaffirming the central role of the judge in reconstructing the content of complementary protection through a balancing of the competing interests at stake.

Labour Integration as a Dimension of Private Life

In the case under consideration, complementary protection was granted on the basis of the demonstrated existence of a private life firmly rooted in the national territory. The Court attached central importance to the applicant’s employment stability and lawful income, expressly referring to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which professional activity represents one of the primary contexts in which individuals develop social and personal relationships.

Work is thus regarded not merely as an economic indicator, but as a structural component of private life protected under Article 8 ECHR, in line with the evolution of European and domestic jurisprudence on complementary protection.

Balancing of Interests and Limits of Complementary Protection

At the same time, the ruling reiterates that complementary protection does not constitute an automatic right, nor a mechanism of generalised regularisation. A balancing exercise with considerations of national security and public order remains essential, in accordance with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

Accordingly, protection operates only where there is an effective and significant degree of rooting in the host country and in the absence of prevailing exclusionary grounds, confirming a rigorous and non-expansive conception of the institute.

Concluding Remarks

The decree of the Ordinary Court of Bologna of 5 December 2025 represents a significant contribution to the reconstruction of complementary protection in the period following Decree-Law No. 20/2023. The decision confirms that the reform did not empty the institute of its substance, but rather reshaped its technique of application, restoring centrality to case-by-case judicial assessment and to the balancing of fundamental rights.

The full publication of the decision allows for an appreciation of a broad and systematic line of reasoning, capable of serving as a reference point for judicial practice and academic debate.

Full text of the decree available on Calameo:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775ebab26d3b1ae

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo


alle Nessun commento:

domenica 14 dicembre 2025

الإدانات في جرائم المخدرات وتحويل تصريح الإقامة للعمل: نطاق الرفض الإلزامي

 الإدانات في جرائم المخدرات وتحويل تصريح الإقامة للعمل: نطاق الرفض الإلزامي

تُتيح حكم المحكمة الإدارية الإقليمية لإميليا-رومانيا، الدائرة الأولى، رقم 01561 لسنة 2025، الصادر في ديسمبر 2025، فرصة مهمة لإعادة تناول مسألة محورية ولا تزال مثار جدل واسع في قانون الهجرة، وهي أثر الإدانات الجنائية في جرائم المخدرات على إمكانية تجديد أو تحويل تصريح الإقامة لأسباب العمل المأجور.

نُشرت الحكم كاملة ويمكن الاطلاع عليها عبر الرابط التالي:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797757982a2aef314
وتندرج هذه القرار ضمن مسار قضائي مستقر، مع قيامه في الوقت ذاته بتحديد حدوده التطبيقية بدقة، من خلال التمييز بين حالات المانع القانوني التلقائي وبين الهوامش المحدودة المتبقية للسلطة التقديرية للإدارة.

تعود وقائع النزاع إلى رفض صادر عن جهة الشرطة المختصة (Questura) لطلب تجديد وتحويل تصريح إقامة لأسباب عائلية إلى تصريح إقامة للعمل المأجور. وقد استند الرفض إلى وجود إدانة جنائية نهائية بحيازة مواد مخدرة بقصد الاتجار، صادرة وفقًا للمادة 73، الفقرة 1 مكرر، من المرسوم الرئاسي رقم 309 لسنة 1990. وقد طعنت جهة الدفاع في الطابع التلقائي للرفض، معتبرة أن على الإدارة إجراء تقييم شامل للوضع الشخصي والمهني والاجتماعي لصاحب الطلب.

غير أن المحكمة الإدارية أوضحت ابتداءً الإطار القانوني الصحيح الواجب التطبيق، مستبعدةً سريان المادة 9 من النص الموحد للهجرة الخاصة بتصريح الإقامة طويل الأمد للاتحاد الأوروبي، ومُحيلةً النزاع إلى أحكام المادتين 4، الفقرة 3، و5 من المرسوم التشريعي رقم 286 الصادر في 25 يوليو 1998. وضمن هذا الإطار، تُعدّ الإدانة في جرائم المخدرات، في صورها الأشد خطورة المنصوص عليها قانونًا، سببًا مانعًا تلقائيًا يحول دون منح أو تحويل تصريح الإقامة لأسباب العمل.

وتؤكد الحكم أنه، في وجود مثل هذه الإدانة، لا تكون لتعليق تنفيذ العقوبة، ولا لمنح الظروف المخففة، ولا لمرور الزمن منذ ارتكاب الجريمة أي أهمية قانونية. ففي هذه الحالات، لا تتمتع الإدارة بسلطة تقديرية واسعة، بل تكون ملزمة قانونًا برفض تصريح الإقامة المطلوب.

ويتناول جزء محوري من الحكم الاستثناء الوحيد لهذا النظام التلقائي، والمتمثل في وجود روابط أسرية فعلية وحالية مع أشخاص مقيمين بصفة قانونية في إيطاليا. وفقط عندما تُثبت وحدة أسرية حقيقية بشكل ملموس، وليس بمجرد تصريح شكلي، تلتزم الإدارة، بموجب المادة 5، الفقرة 5، من النص الموحد للهجرة، بإجراء موازنة بين المصلحة العامة في الأمن وحماية الحياة الأسرية، وذلك أيضًا في ضوء المادة 8 من الاتفاقية الأوروبية لحقوق الإنسان.

وفي القضية محل البحث، خلصت المحكمة إلى عدم توافر هذا الشرط، مُبرزةً غياب التعايش الفعلي وعدم إثبات وجود نواة أسرية قائمة. وبناءً على ذلك، أكدت المحكمة الطابع الإلزامي قانونًا لقرار الرفض.

وتدعو هذه الحكم إلى تأمل أوسع في العلاقة بين الاندماج الاجتماعي والآليات القانونية التلقائية في قانون الهجرة. إذ يعتقد كثير من الأجانب أن إدانة «تم تنفيذها» أو تعود إلى زمن بعيد لم تعد تؤثر على وضعهم الإداري. غير أن الحكم محل التعليق يُظهر أن بعض الإدانات، في مجال تصاريح الإقامة للعمل المأجور، لا تزال تُشكّل حواجز قانونية لا يمكن تجاوزها، بغض النظر عن المسار المهني اللاحق أو مستوى الاندماج الاجتماعي المحقق.

ومن هذا المنظور، يُمثل حكم المحكمة الإدارية الإقليمية لإميليا-رومانيا نقطة مرجعية واضحة في تحديد الوضع الراهن للقانون، إذ يوفر للفاعلين القانونيين إطارًا دقيقًا للحدود التي يمكن ضمنها الاحتجاج بالسلطة التقديرية للإدارة، ويُبيّن في المقابل الحالات التي تكون فيها هذه السلطة مستبعدة قانونًا.

المدونات الصوتية المرتبطة بالحكم

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

alle Nessun commento:

Condenas por delitos de drogas y conversión del permiso de residencia por trabajo: el alcance de la denegación obligatoria

 Condenas por delitos de drogas y conversión del permiso de residencia por trabajo: el alcance de la denegación obligatoria

La sentencia del Tribunal Administrativo Regional de Emilia-Romaña, Sección Primera, número 01561 de 2025, dictada en diciembre de 2025, ofrece una ocasión relevante para volver sobre una cuestión central y todavía muy controvertida en el derecho de extranjería: la incidencia de las condenas penales por delitos relacionados con las drogas en la posibilidad de renovar o convertir un permiso de residencia por motivos de trabajo por cuenta ajena.

La resolución, publicada íntegramente y disponible en el siguiente enlace:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797757982a2aef314
se inscribe en una línea jurisprudencial ya consolidada, pero al mismo tiempo delimita con especial claridad sus contornos operativos, distinguiendo entre supuestos de automatismo impeditivo y los reducidos márgenes residuales de valoración discrecional de la administración.

El litigio se origina a partir de la denegación acordada por la Questura respecto de una solicitud de renovación y conversión de un permiso de residencia por motivos familiares en un permiso por trabajo por cuenta ajena. La denegación se basó en la existencia de una condena penal firme por tenencia de sustancias estupefacientes con fines de tráfico, impuesta conforme al artículo 73, apartado 1-bis, del Decreto del Presidente de la República 309 de 1990. La defensa cuestionó el automatismo aplicado por la administración, alegando la necesidad de una valoración global de la situación personal, laboral y social del interesado.

El Tribunal Administrativo aclara, en primer lugar, el correcto encuadramiento normativo del caso, excluyendo la aplicabilidad del artículo 9 del Texto Único de Inmigración, relativo al permiso de residencia de larga duración UE, y reconduciendo la cuestión a los artículos 4, apartado 3, y 5 del Decreto Legislativo número 286 de 25 de julio de 1998. En este marco, la condena por delitos relacionados con las drogas, en sus formas más graves previstas por la ley, constituye una causa automática que impide la expedición o la conversión del permiso de residencia por motivos de trabajo.

La sentencia reafirma que, en presencia de este tipo de condenas, carecen de relevancia jurídica tanto la suspensión condicional de la pena como la concesión de circunstancias atenuantes o el tiempo transcurrido desde la comisión del delito. En tales supuestos, la administración no dispone de un amplio margen de apreciación, sino que se encuentra jurídicamente vinculada a denegar el permiso de residencia solicitado.

Un pasaje central de la resolución se refiere, no obstante, a la única excepción a este automatismo: la existencia de vínculos familiares efectivos y actuales con personas legalmente residentes en Italia. Solo cuando se acredita de manera concreta una unidad familiar real, y no meramente declarada de forma formal, el artículo 5, apartado 5, del Texto Único de Inmigración impone a la administración la obligación de realizar una ponderación entre el interés público en la seguridad y la protección de la vida familiar, también a la luz del artículo 8 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

En el caso examinado, el Tribunal considera que dicho presupuesto no concurría, subrayando la ausencia de una convivencia efectiva y la falta de prueba de un núcleo familiar actual. De ello se deriva, de manera coherente, la confirmación del carácter jurídicamente obligatorio de la denegación.

La decisión invita a una reflexión más amplia sobre la relación entre integración social y automatismos normativos en el derecho de extranjería. Muchos extranjeros confían en que una condena ya “cumplida” o lejana en el tiempo no incida ulteriormente en su situación administrativa. La sentencia objeto de comentario demuestra, por el contrario, que en el ámbito de los permisos de residencia por trabajo por cuenta ajena determinadas condenas siguen operando como barreras jurídicas infranqueables, con independencia del posterior recorrido laboral o del grado de integración social alcanzado.

Desde esta perspectiva, la resolución del Tribunal Administrativo Regional de Emilia-Romaña representa un punto firme sobre el estado actual del derecho vigente, ofreciendo a los operadores jurídicos un marco claro de los límites dentro de los cuales puede invocarse útilmente la valoración discrecional de la administración y, al mismo tiempo, de aquellos supuestos en los que dicha discrecionalidad resulta legalmente excluida.

Podcasts relacionados con la sentencia

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

alle Nessun commento:

Drug-Related Convictions and the Conversion of Residence Permits for Work: The Scope of Mandatory Refusal

 

Drug-Related Convictions and the Conversion of Residence Permits for Work: The Scope of Mandatory Refusal

The judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna, First Section, number 01561 of 2025, delivered in December 2025, provides an important opportunity to revisit a central and still highly controversial issue in immigration law: the impact of criminal convictions for drug-related offences on the possibility of renewing or converting a residence permit for subordinate employment.

The full decision is published and available at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797757982a2aef314
The ruling follows a well-established line of case law, while at the same time clearly defining its operational boundaries by distinguishing between situations of automatic legal impediment and the limited residual areas of administrative discretion.

The dispute arose from the refusal issued by the Questura in response to an application for the renewal and conversion of a residence permit for family reasons into a permit for subordinate employment. The refusal was based on the existence of a final criminal conviction for possession of narcotic substances with intent to distribute, imposed pursuant to Article 73, paragraph 1-bis, of Presidential Decree 309 of 1990. The defence challenged the automatic nature of the refusal, arguing that the administration should have carried out an overall assessment of the applicant’s personal, employment and social circumstances.

The Administrative Court, however, first clarified the correct legal framework applicable to the case, excluding the relevance of Article 9 of the Consolidated Immigration Act concerning EU long-term residence permits, and instead referring the matter to Articles 4, paragraph 3, and 5 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 25 July 1998. Within this framework, convictions for serious drug-related offences constitute an automatic ground preventing the issuance or conversion of a residence permit for work purposes.

The judgment reiterates that, in the presence of such convictions, neither the suspension of the sentence, nor the granting of mitigating circumstances, nor the passage of time since the commission of the offence is legally relevant. In these situations, the administration does not enjoy a broad discretionary power but is legally bound to refuse the requested residence permit.

A key part of the decision concerns the sole exception to this automatic mechanism: the existence of effective and current family ties with persons lawfully residing in Italy. Only where a genuine family unit is proven in concrete terms, and not merely formally declared, does Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Consolidated Immigration Act require the administration to carry out a balancing exercise between the public interest in security and the protection of family life, also in light of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the case examined, the Court found that this requirement was not met, emphasising the absence of effective cohabitation and the lack of evidence of an existing family nucleus. Consequently, the refusal was confirmed as legally mandatory.

The decision invites a broader reflection on the relationship between social integration and statutory automatic mechanisms in immigration law. Many foreign nationals believe that a conviction which has already been “served” or which dates back many years no longer affects their administrative status. The judgment under review demonstrates, instead, that in the field of residence permits for subordinate employment certain convictions continue to operate as insurmountable legal barriers, regardless of subsequent employment history or the degree of social integration achieved.

From this perspective, the ruling of the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court represents a clear statement of the current state of the law, offering practitioners and legal operators a precise framework within which administrative discretion may be invoked, and identifying those cases in which such discretion is legally excluded.

Podcasts related to the judgment

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

alle Nessun commento:

Condanne per stupefacenti e conversione del permesso di soggiorno per lavoro: il perimetro del diniego vincolato

 Condanne per stupefacenti e conversione del permesso di soggiorno per lavoro: il perimetro del diniego vincolato

La sentenza del Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna, Sezione Prima, numero 01561 del 2025, depositata nel dicembre 2025, offre l’occasione per tornare su un tema centrale e tutt’altro che pacifico nel diritto dell’immigrazione: l’incidenza delle condanne penali in materia di stupefacenti sulla possibilità di ottenere il rinnovo o la conversione del permesso di soggiorno per motivi di lavoro subordinato.

Il provvedimento, pubblicato integralmente e consultabile al seguente link
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797757982a2aef314
si colloca nel solco di un orientamento giurisprudenziale ormai consolidato, ma ne chiarisce con particolare nettezza i confini applicativi, distinguendo tra ipotesi di automatismo ostativo e residui spazi di valutazione discrezionale in capo all’amministrazione.

La controversia trae origine dal diniego opposto dalla Questura a una istanza di rinnovo e conversione di un permesso di soggiorno per motivi familiari in permesso per lavoro subordinato. Il diniego era fondato sull’esistenza di una condanna definitiva per detenzione di sostanze stupefacenti a fini di spaccio, pronunciata ai sensi dell’articolo 73, comma 1-bis, del DPR 309 del 90. La difesa aveva contestato l’automatismo applicato dall’amministrazione, invocando una valutazione complessiva della situazione personale, lavorativa e sociale dell’interessato.

Il TAR chiarisce preliminarmente il corretto inquadramento normativo della fattispecie, escludendo l’applicabilità dell’articolo 9 del Testo Unico Immigrazione, relativo al permesso di soggiorno UE per soggiornanti di lungo periodo, e riconducendo il caso agli articoli 4, comma 3, e 5 del decreto legislativo 25 luglio 1998, numero 286. In tale ambito, la condanna per reati inerenti gli stupefacenti, nelle forme più gravi previste dalla legge, integra una causa ostativa automatica al rilascio e alla conversione del permesso di soggiorno per lavoro.

La sentenza ribadisce che, in presenza di tali condanne, non assumono rilievo né la sospensione condizionale della pena, né la concessione di attenuanti, né il tempo trascorso dalla commissione del fatto. L’amministrazione, in questi casi, non dispone di un potere valutativo pieno, ma è vincolata al diniego del titolo di soggiorno richiesto.

Un passaggio centrale della decisione riguarda tuttavia l’unica eccezione a tale automatismo: la presenza di legami familiari effettivi e attuali con soggetti regolarmente residenti in Italia. Solo in presenza di una reale unità familiare, dimostrata in modo concreto e non meramente formale, l’articolo 5, comma 5, del Testo Unico Immigrazione impone all’amministrazione una valutazione comparativa tra l’interesse pubblico alla sicurezza e la tutela della vita familiare, anche alla luce dell’articolo 8 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo.

Nel caso esaminato, il TAR ritiene che tale presupposto non fosse integrato, evidenziando l’assenza di una convivenza effettiva e la mancata dimostrazione di un nucleo familiare attuale. Ne deriva, coerentemente, la conferma del carattere vincolato del diniego.

La decisione si presta a una riflessione più ampia sul rapporto tra integrazione sociale e automatismi normativi nel diritto dell’immigrazione. Molti stranieri confidano nel fatto che una condanna ormai “scontata” o risalente nel tempo non incida più sul loro percorso amministrativo. La sentenza in commento dimostra invece come, almeno in materia di permesso di soggiorno per lavoro subordinato, alcune condanne continuino a operare come barriere giuridiche difficilmente superabili, indipendentemente dal successivo inserimento lavorativo o sociale.

In questo senso, il provvedimento del TAR Emilia-Romagna rappresenta un punto fermo sullo stato attuale del diritto vivente, offrendo agli operatori del settore un quadro chiaro dei limiti entro i quali può essere utilmente invocata la valutazione discrezionale dell’amministrazione e, al contempo, dei casi in cui tale valutazione risulta giuridicamente preclusa.

Podcast collegati alla sentenza

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

alle Nessun commento:

sabato 13 dicembre 2025

El derecho penal es, por definición, ultima ratio. Incluso cuando se enfrenta a la inmigración y al derecho de asilo.

  El derecho penal es, por definición, ultima ratio. Incluso cuando se enfrenta a la inmigración y al derecho de asilo.

alle Nessun commento:
Iscriviti a: Commenti (Atom)

Refuzimi i autorizimit të punës: punëtori i huaj nuk ka të drejtë ankimi Një vendim italian sqaron kush ka legjitimitet në procedurat e emigracionit për punë

  Refuzimi i autorizimit të punës: punëtori i huaj nuk ka të drejtë ankimi Një vendim italian sqaron kush ka legjitimitet në procedurat e em...