Episod i ri shumëgjuhësh i podkastit “E Drejta e Emigracionit” tani i disponueshëm: konvertimi i lejes sezonale dhe kontrolli administrativ

 Episod i ri shumëgjuhësh i podkastit “E Drejta e Emigracionit” tani i disponueshëm: konvertimi i lejes sezonale dhe kontrolli administrativ

Një episod i ri i podkastit E Drejta e Emigracionit është tashmë online, i kushtuar një teme me rëndësi të lartë juridike dhe praktike: konvertimi i lejes së qëndrimit për punë sezonale, kufijtë e vonesës në paraqitjen e kërkesës dhe kontrolli gjyqësor mbi veprimtarinë administrative, në dritën e jurisprudencës më të fundit të Gjykatës Administrative Rajonale të Emilia-Romanjës.

Episodi analizon një vendim gjyqësor që sjell sqarime thelbësore mbi praktikën e Sporteleve Unike të Emigracionit, me fokus të veçantë te garancitë procedurale, verifikimi i kriterit të 39 ditëve pune dhe koncepti i “arsyeshmërisë” në paraqitjen e kërkesës për konvertim. Vendimi përjashton shprehimisht refuzimet automatike dhe interpretimet thjesht formaliste nga ana e administratës.

Për të garantuar akses maksimal dhe shpërndarje sa më të gjerë, episodi është publikuar në disa gjuhë, të gjitha të disponueshme në Spreaker përmes lidhjeve të mëposhtme:

Versioni në gjuhën arabe
https://www.spreaker.com/episode/thwyl-tsryh-alaqamt-ll-ml-almwsmy-altakhyr-fy-tqdym-altlb-walrqabt-aladaryt-twdyhat-almhkmt-aladaryt-alaqlymyt-laymylya-rwmanya--69217318

Versioni në gjuhën frënge
https://www.spreaker.com/episode/conversion-du-titre-de-sejour-pour-travail-saisonnier-tardivete-et-controle-administratif--69217336

Versioni në gjuhën angleze
https://www.spreaker.com/episode/conversion-of-a-seasonal-residence-permit-late-filing-and-administrative-review--69217338

Versioni në gjuhën spanjolle
https://www.spreaker.com/episode/conversion-del-permiso-de-residencia-por-trabajo-estacional-extemporaneidad-y-control-administrativo--69217335

Versioni në gjuhën shqipe
https://www.spreaker.com/episode/konvertimi-i-lejes-se-qendrimit-per-pune-sezonale-vonesa-ne-paraqitjen-e-kerkeses-dhe-kontrolli-administrativ--69217337

Kjo nismë bën pjesë në një aktivitet të vazhdueshëm të divulgimit juridik, me qëllim që e drejta e emigracionit të bëhet e kuptueshme për një publik të gjerë dhe shumëgjuhësh, duke vënë në pah ndikimin konkret të praktikave administrative mbi të drejtat e personave të huaj.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Residence Permits, Criminal Convictions, and Integration: Work Is Not Enough TAR Marche, judgment of December 16, 2025, general register number 684 of 2025

 Residence Permits, Criminal Convictions, and Integration: Work Is Not Enough

TAR Marche, judgment of December 16, 2025, general register number 684 of 2025

The judgment of the Regional Administrative Court for the Marche Region (TAR Marche), Second Section, issued on December 16, 2025, in the proceedings entered under general register number 684 of 2025, has been published on Calameo. The decision addresses a matter of particular relevance in immigration law: the relationship between work-based integration, criminal convictions, and the refusal of a residence permit for employment purposes.

The full text of the judgment is available at the following link:
👉 Calameo publication: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f468fd0c9ded
Direct link: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f468fd0c9ded

The case

The dispute arose from the refusal by the Police Headquarters to issue a residence permit for work to a foreign national whose EU long-term residence permit had previously been revoked. During the administrative proceedings, a criminal conviction intervened, following a plea agreement, for offenses involving domestic abuse and personal injury.

Despite the existence of an employment relationship and the alleged presence of family ties in Italy, the Administration denied the residence permit on the grounds that the applicant posed a risk to public safety, deemed incompatible with the issuance of a residence title.

The principle affirmed by the Court

In its judgment of December 16, 2025, the TAR Marche dismissed the appeal and clearly affirmed that integration cannot be reduced to employment alone. While work is a relevant factor in assessing integration, it is not sufficient in itself to override a finding of social dangerousness, particularly where the criminal conduct affects fundamental interests protected by the legal order, such as personal integrity and family relations.

The Court emphasized that integration must be assessed in a substantive and comprehensive manner, including respect for the social and cultural values of the host country. In this context, conduct within the private and family sphere assumes full legal relevance, especially when the criminal acts occurred precisely within that sphere.

Prohibition of automatism and administrative discretion

Of particular importance is the Court’s interpretation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act. The TAR reiterated that the prohibition of automatic decisions does not translate into a subjective right to obtain a residence permit. The Administration is required to conduct a balancing assessment between the foreign national’s interest in remaining in the country and the community’s interest in public safety. Such an assessment may legitimately result in a refusal.

The presence of family ties is not, in itself, decisive unless those ties fall within the strictly defined categories established by law, nor can they operate as a “shield” against conduct considered to be of serious social concern.

The nature of Article 9, paragraph 9, of the Immigration Consolidated Act

The judgment also provides a clear clarification regarding Article 9, paragraph 9, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998. The possibility of issuing a different type of residence permit after the revocation of an EU long-term residence permit is characterized as a discretionary power of the Administration, not an obligation. The exercise of that power remains subject to verification of all statutory requirements, including the absence of any risk to public safety.

Concluding remarks

The decision of the TAR Marche, judgment of December 16, 2025, general register number 684 of 2025, fits within a line of case law that unequivocally reaffirms a principle often overlooked in public debate: work is not an automatic shield in immigration law. Integration is not merely an economic fact, but a complex process that entails responsibility, compliance with the rules, and adherence to the fundamental values of the legal system.

The full publication of the judgment on Calameo allows legal practitioners, scholars, and professionals in the field of immigration law to examine the decision directly and to fully appreciate its systemic implications.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Renewal of the Residence Permit for Self-Employment: the Liguria Regional Administrative Court Confirms the Income Requirement as an Essential Condition

 Renewal of the Residence Permit for Self-Employment: the Liguria Regional Administrative Court Confirms the Income Requirement as an Essential Condition

In a judgment delivered in January 2026, the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria confirmed the lawfulness of a decision refusing the renewal of a residence permit for self-employment, based on the applicant’s lack of adequate and continuous income.

The ruling fits squarely within a now well-established line of case law that attributes a substantive, rather than merely formal, value to the income requirement. According to the Court, income is not a purely bureaucratic parameter, but a concrete indicator of the foreign national’s actual ability to support himself independently, to achieve stable integration into the economic and social fabric of the host country, and to avoid placing a burden on the public system.

In the case at hand, the Administration had ascertained, through the databases of the National Social Security Institute and the Tax Authority, that the income declared by the applicant was extremely low and discontinuous, and in any event far below the statutory threshold required for exemption from contributions to public healthcare costs. On the basis of these findings, the Court held that Article 26 of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998 had been correctly applied, expressly excluding any “flexible” interpretation of the income threshold in the absence of objective elements demonstrating genuine economic self-sufficiency.

Particularly noteworthy is the reasoning whereby the administrative judge refers to the most recent case law of the Council of State, reaffirming that the burden of proving the availability of lawful and sufficient income lies with the foreign national and constitutes a non-derogable requirement for the renewal of a residence permit. From this perspective, self-employment cannot be assessed in abstract terms, but must translate into an effective and stable means of economic support.

The judgment therefore provides a clear clarification on an issue that frequently gives rise to litigation: the renewal of a residence permit cannot be granted without a rigorous assessment of the applicant’s economic capacity, even where the permit is formally based on self-employment. The decisive factor remains the existence of real, documented and sustainable income over time.

The full text of the decision is available in the Calaméo publication at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775bc1086ff5b3e

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Konvertimi i lejes së qëndrimit për studime: vendimi i TAR-it të Bolonjës nr. 14 i vitit 2026

 

Conversion du titre de séjour pour études : arrêt du TAR de Bologne n° 14 de 2026

 

Renouvellement du titre de séjour pour travail indépendant : le TAR de Ligurie confirme l’exigence du revenu comme condition essentielle

 Renouvellement du titre de séjour pour travail indépendant : le TAR de Ligurie confirme l’exigence du revenu comme condition essentielle

Par un arrêt rendu en janvier 2026, le Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria a confirmé la légalité du refus de renouvellement d’un titre de séjour pour travail indépendant, fondé sur l’absence de revenus suffisants et continus de la part du demandeur.

La décision s’inscrit pleinement dans une jurisprudence désormais bien établie, qui confère à l’exigence de revenu une portée substantielle et non pas simplement formelle. Selon le Tribunal, le revenu ne constitue pas un simple paramètre bureaucratique abstrait, mais un indicateur concret de la capacité réelle de l’étranger à subvenir à ses besoins de manière autonome, à s’insérer de façon stable dans le tissu économique et social et à ne pas faire peser de charges sur le système public.

Dans l’affaire examinée, l’Administration avait constaté, à partir des bases de données de l’Institut national de sécurité sociale et de l’Administration fiscale, que les revenus perçus étaient extrêmement faibles et discontinus, et en tout état de cause largement inférieurs au seuil minimum prévu par la loi pour l’exonération de la participation aux dépenses de santé. À la lumière de ces éléments, le Tribunal a jugé que l’article 26 du décret législatif n° 286/1998 avait été correctement appliqué, excluant expressément toute interprétation « souple » du critère de revenu en l’absence d’éléments objectifs démontrant une réelle autosuffisance économique.

La motivation par laquelle le juge administratif se réfère à la jurisprudence la plus récente du Conseil d’État est particulièrement significative : elle réaffirme que la charge de la preuve de la disponibilité de revenus licites et suffisants incombe au ressortissant étranger et constitue une condition non dérogeable pour le renouvellement du titre de séjour. Dans cette perspective, le travail indépendant ne peut être apprécié de manière abstraite, mais doit se traduire par des ressources économiques effectives et stables.

L’arrêt apporte ainsi une clarification nette sur une question fréquemment source de contentieux : le renouvellement du titre de séjour ne saurait être accordé sans une évaluation rigoureuse de la capacité économique du demandeur, même lorsque le titre est formellement fondé sur une activité indépendante. Le critère déterminant demeure l’existence de revenus réels, documentés et durables dans le temps.

Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible dans la publication Calaméo au lien suivant :
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775bc1086ff5b3e

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Italia reconoce la protección complementaria: cuando la integración se convierte en un escudo jurídico

 Italia reconoce la protección complementaria: cuando la integración se convierte en un escudo jurídico

En una decisión administrativa de gran relevancia, Italia ha confirmado una vez más que la integración efectiva en la sociedad puede desempeñar un papel decisivo en la protección de las personas extranjeras frente a la expulsión. El 18 de diciembre de 2025, la Comisión Territorial para el Reconocimiento de la Protección Internacional de Génova concedió la protección complementaria a un ciudadano extranjero, al considerar que su retorno forzoso al país de origen habría supuesto una violación desproporcionada de sus derechos fundamentales.

La decisión íntegra ha sido publicada y está disponible para consulta pública en el siguiente enlace:
https://www.calameo.com/books/00807977586f4b5d40bb2

La protección complementaria es una forma específica de protección prevista por el derecho italiano, regulada por el artículo 19 del Decreto Legislativo n.º 286/1998 (Ley de Inmigración). Se aplica cuando no concurren los requisitos para el estatuto de refugiado ni para la protección subsidiaria, pero la expulsión o devolución resultaría contraria a las obligaciones de tutela de los derechos fundamentales, en particular al derecho a la vida privada y familiar.

En este caso, la Comisión de Génova rechazó el reconocimiento del estatuto de refugiado y de la protección subsidiaria, pero realizó una evaluación autónoma e individualizada de la situación personal del solicitante. El elemento decisivo fue el grado de integración real en Italia, especialmente en los ámbitos social y laboral. La Comisión reconoció que el interesado había construido vínculos personales y profesionales estables y que su expulsión habría causado un perjuicio grave e irreversible.

La importancia de esta decisión radica en su razonamiento jurídico. La integración no fue considerada como una recompensa o un factor accesorio, sino como un elemento jurídicamente relevante de la vida privada, protegida por las normas europeas de derechos humanos. La Comisión concluyó que el retorno forzoso constituiría una injerencia desproporcionada en dichos derechos.

Este enfoque refleja una tendencia creciente en la práctica administrativa italiana, que concibe la protección complementaria como una garantía sustantiva y no como una medida residual. Confirma que el control de la inmigración debe equilibrarse con la obligación de respetar la dignidad humana y los derechos fundamentales.

Para las personas extranjeras que residen en Italia, esta decisión transmite un mensaje claro: la construcción de vínculos reales y documentados con el país puede tener consecuencias jurídicas concretas. El trabajo, las relaciones sociales y la estabilidad a largo plazo no son meros datos de hecho, sino que pueden convertirse en elementos determinantes para evitar la expulsión.

Para los abogados y profesionales del sector, la decisión de Génova constituye un ejemplo significativo del funcionamiento práctico de la protección complementaria y demuestra que, incluso cuando se deniega la protección internacional, el ordenamiento italiano prevé mecanismos para impedir expulsiones contrarias a los derechos fundamentales.

En un contexto de debate permanente sobre la migración en Europa, este caso reafirma un principio esencial: la integración importa, no solo desde el punto de vista social, sino también jurídico.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo