mercoledì 1 luglio 2026
¿Puede un trabajador perder la autorización de trabajo por culpa de su empleador? https://ift.tt/wj1aCuF Avv. Fabio Loscerbo ¿Puede un trabajador perder la autorización de trabajo por culpa de su empleador? Bienvenidos a un nuevo episodio del podcast Derecho de Inmigración. Soy el Abogado Fabio Loscerbo. Hoy analizamos una importante decisión publicada el 16 de abril de 2026 por el Tribunal Regional de Justicia Administrativa de Bolzano, sentencia número 92 de 2026, dictada en el procedimiento Registro General número 245 de 2025. El caso se refiere a un trabajador extranjero que había ingresado legalmente en Italia a través del sistema de cuotas de entrada para trabajadores, conocido como Decreto Flussi, después de obtener el visado y la correspondiente autorización de trabajo. Posteriormente, la administración revocó dicha autorización porque el empleador no había presentado toda la documentación exigida por la normativa. El trabajador impugnó la decisión alegando que había colaborado con las autoridades y que había aportado todos los documentos que estaban a su disposición. Sin embargo, el Tribunal rechazó el recurso, afirmando que las obligaciones documentales previstas por el procedimiento recaen principalmente sobre el empleador. Según los jueces, la persistencia de deficiencias documentales esenciales justificaba la revocación de la autorización de trabajo. La sentencia también aborda la cuestión del permiso de residencia por búsqueda de empleo. El Tribunal recuerda que este permiso solo puede concederse en circunstancias excepcionales, cuando la contratación no se ha podido realizar debido a una causa de fuerza mayor que afecte al empleador, como una quiebra o cualquier otro acontecimiento extraordinario. En este caso, dichas circunstancias no existían. Esta decisión pone de manifiesto un aspecto fundamental del sistema italiano de cuotas de entrada para trabajadores. La situación jurídica del trabajador extranjero sigue estando estrechamente vinculada al cumplimiento de las obligaciones administrativas por parte del empleador. Por ello, las omisiones o irregularidades atribuibles a la empresa pueden tener consecuencias importantes incluso para un trabajador que ya ha entrado legalmente en Italia. Gracias por escuchar este episodio del podcast Derecho de Inmigración. Soy el Abogado Fabio Loscerbo y los espero en el próximo episodio.
¿Puede un trabajador perder la autorización de trabajo por culpa de su empleador?
¿Puede un trabajador perder la autorización de trabajo por culpa de su empleador?
Bienvenidos a un nuevo episodio del podcast Derecho de Inmigración. Soy el Abogado Fabio Loscerbo.
Hoy analizamos una importante decisión publicada el 16 de abril de 2026 por el Tribunal Regional de Justicia Administrativa de Bolzano, sentencia número 92 de 2026, dictada en el procedimiento Registro General número 245 de 2025.
El caso se refiere a un trabajador extranjero que había ingresado legalmente en Italia a través del sistema de cuotas de entrada para trabajadores, conocido como Decreto Flussi, después de obtener el visado y la correspondiente autorización de trabajo.
Posteriormente, la administración revocó dicha autorización porque el empleador no había presentado toda la documentación exigida por la normativa.
El trabajador impugnó la decisión alegando que había colaborado con las autoridades y que había aportado todos los documentos que estaban a su disposición. Sin embargo, el Tribunal rechazó el recurso, afirmando que las obligaciones documentales previstas por el procedimiento recaen principalmente sobre el empleador. Según los jueces, la persistencia de deficiencias documentales esenciales justificaba la revocación de la autorización de trabajo.
La sentencia también aborda la cuestión del permiso de residencia por búsqueda de empleo. El Tribunal recuerda que este permiso solo puede concederse en circunstancias excepcionales, cuando la contratación no se ha podido realizar debido a una causa de fuerza mayor que afecte al empleador, como una quiebra o cualquier otro acontecimiento extraordinario. En este caso, dichas circunstancias no existían.
Esta decisión pone de manifiesto un aspecto fundamental del sistema italiano de cuotas de entrada para trabajadores. La situación jurídica del trabajador extranjero sigue estando estrechamente vinculada al cumplimiento de las obligaciones administrativas por parte del empleador. Por ello, las omisiones o irregularidades atribuibles a la empresa pueden tener consecuencias importantes incluso para un trabajador que ya ha entrado legalmente en Italia.
Gracias por escuchar este episodio del podcast Derecho de Inmigración. Soy el Abogado Fabio Loscerbo y los espero en el próximo episodio.
via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/wj1aCuF
martedì 30 giugno 2026
New on TikTok: الحماية الخاصة بعد مرسوم كوترو: محكمة بولونيا تؤكد أهمية الاندماج والحياة الخاصة مرحباً بكم في حلقة جديدة من بودكاست قانون الهجرة. أنا المحامي فابيو لوسيربو. نتحدث اليوم عن قرارين مهمين أصدرتهما محكمة بولونيا بتاريخ 22 مايو 2026. ويؤكد هذان القراران مبدأً قد يكون له تأثير كبير على العديد من قضايا الحماية الخاصة التي لا تزال منظورة أمام المحاكم الإيطالية. تتعلق القضيتان بمواطنين مغربيين رُفضت طلباتهما للحصول على الحماية الدولية من قبل اللجنة الإقليمية المختصة. إلا أن المحكمة، أثناء نظرها في الدعويين، وجدت أن كليهما نجح في بناء حياة حقيقية ومستقرة في إيطاليا من خلال العمل المنتظم، والسكن المستقل، والعلاقات الاجتماعية، واحترام قوانين الدولة الإيطالية. وتكمن أهمية هذين القرارين في استناد المحكمة إلى قرار محكمة النقض الإيطالية رقم 13309 لسنة 2025. فقد أكدت المحكمة أن مرسوم كوترو لم يُلغِ حماية الحياة الخاصة والعائلية للأجانب. وحتى بعد التعديلات التشريعية التي أُدخلت عام 2023، ما زالت السلطات ملزمة باحترام الالتزامات الدستورية والدولية عند تقييم أوضاع الأشخاص المقيمين في إيطاليا. وأوضح القضاة أن الشخص الذي بنى حياته في إيطاليا من خلال العمل والعلاقات الاجتماعية والاستقرار المعيشي قد يتعرض لضرر جسيم إذا أُجبر على مغادرة البلاد. فالإبعاد أو الترحيل قد يشكل انتهاكاً للحق في الحياة الخاصة والعائلية المنصوص عليه في المادة الثامنة من الاتفاقية الأوروبية لحقوق الإنسان، وكذلك للمبادئ الأساسية الواردة في الدستور الإيطالي. ولا يقتصر التقييم على وجود عقد عمل فقط، بل يشمل مجمل مسار الاندماج الاجتماعي والإنساني الذي حققه الشخص في إيطاليا. في القضية الأولى، أخذت المحكمة بعين الاعتبار سنوات من العمل في قطاع البناء، ووجود مسكن مستقل، والحصول على رخصة قيادة إيطالية. أما في القضية الثانية، فقد اعتبرت المحكمة أن عقد العمل الدائم، والالتحاق بدورات اللغة الإيطالية، ووجود سكن مستقل، وعدم وجود سوابق جنائية أو مخالفات، كلها عناصر تؤكد اندماج الشخص في المجتمع الإيطالي. وبناءً على هذه المعطيات، أقرت محكمة بولونيا حق كلا المتقاضيين في الحصول على تصريح إقامة للحماية الخاصة لمدة سنتين قابل للتجديد ويتيح لهما العمل بشكل قانوني في إيطاليا. تؤكد هذه الأحكام أن الاندماج ما زال عاملاً أساسياً في تقييم طلبات الحماية الخاصة، وأن الحق في الحياة الخاصة والعائلية لا يزال يتمتع بحماية قانونية قوية حتى بعد دخول مرسوم كوترو حيز التنفيذ. شكراً لكم على الاستماع إلى هذه الحلقة من بودكاست قانون الهجرة. معكم المحامي فابيو لوسيربو، وإلى اللقاء في حلقة جديدة حول آخر مستجدات قانون الهجرة. https://ift.tt/F7igAOc https://ift.tt/D5a31XG https://ift.tt/cZWVL1R
Italian Court Confirms Strict Link Between Work Permit Clearance and Employer in Residence Permit Conversions
Italian Court Confirms Strict Link Between Work Permit Clearance and Employer in Residence Permit Conversions
A recent ruling issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna has drawn attention to one of the most delicate aspects of the Italian immigration system: the relationship between the work permit clearance, known as the “nulla osta”, and the employer who initiated the immigration procedure.
The judgment, published on 21 May 2026, concerns a foreign national who had entered the Italian administrative process for the conversion of a residence permit from internship status to subordinate employment.
The case arose after the worker obtained a work permit clearance through a specific employer and signed the required residence contract before the Immigration Desk. However, the original employment relationship never actually started. The worker later began employment with a different company.
Following this change, the Immigration Office of Forlì declared the application for the work residence permit inadmissible, arguing that the employer who initiated the procedure and signed the residence contract was not the same employer who ultimately hired the foreign worker.
The Administrative Court upheld the position of the authorities.
According to the judges, the Italian immigration framework requires continuity between the employer requesting the work permit clearance, the residence contract, and the actual employment relationship established with the foreign national.
The Court also stressed that this interpretation serves a broader purpose: preventing abuses of the immigration system and avoiding situations where procedures are initiated without a genuine intention to employ the worker.
The ruling reflects a traditional approach deeply rooted in the structure of the Italian immigration system, where the employer plays a central role in sponsoring the foreign worker’s entry and regularization process.
At the same time, the decision highlights the growing tension between rigid administrative procedures and the realities of the modern labour market.
Today’s employment landscape is often unstable and highly flexible. Temporary contracts, subcontracting systems, business closures, and rapid job changes are increasingly common. In this context, tying a foreign worker’s immigration status too strictly to a single employer may create significant vulnerabilities.
Interestingly, the Court placed considerable emphasis on one specific detail: the applicant had failed to provide any concrete explanation regarding why the original employment relationship had never started.
This aspect may prove decisive in future litigation.
A foreign worker who can properly document the reasons behind a change of employer — while demonstrating continuity of employment and social integration — could potentially distinguish his or her case from the restrictive interpretation adopted in this judgment.
The ruling therefore sends a clear message to both foreign workers and immigration lawyers: in Italy’s current administrative framework, the procedural consistency of the “nulla osta” pathway remains a central issue in residence permit conversions.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
lunedì 29 giugno 2026
New on TikTok: Special Protection After the Cutro Decree: The Bologna Court Confirms the Importance of Integration and Private Life Welcome to a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. My name is Fabio Loscerbo, and I am an immigration lawyer. Today we will discuss two important decisions issued by the Bologna Court on May 22, 2026. These rulings confirm a principle that could have a significant impact on many pending special protection cases in Italy. The cases involved two Moroccan citizens whose applications for international protection had been rejected by the Territorial Commission. However, during the court proceedings, a crucial fact emerged: both individuals had built a genuine life in Italy through regular employment, stable housing, social relationships, and compliance with Italian laws. The most significant aspect of these decisions is the Court's reliance on Italian Supreme Court ruling number 13309 of 2025. According to the Bologna Court, the Cutro Decree did not eliminate the protection of a foreign national's private and family life. Even after the 2023 legislative reforms, constitutional and international obligations still require authorities to consider a person's level of integration into Italian society. The judges emphasized that the more a person has established their life in Italy, the more serious the consequences of removal may be. Such removal can violate the right to private and family life protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as fundamental principles of the Italian Constitution. The assessment is not limited to employment alone but includes the overall social, personal, and family integration achieved in Italy. In the first case, the Court considered years of employment in the construction sector, independent housing, and the achievement of an Italian driving licence. In the second case, the Court highlighted a permanent employment contract, attendance at Italian language courses, autonomous housing, and the absence of any criminal record or negative conduct. Based on these factors, the Bologna Court granted both applicants a two-year renewable special protection residence permit, allowing them to work legally in Italy. These decisions confirm that integration remains a key factor in special protection cases and that the right to private and family life continues to play a central role even under the legal framework introduced after the Cutro Decree. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Immigration Law podcast. I am Fabio Loscerbo, and I look forward to seeing you in the next episode. https://ift.tt/2KmrncX https://ift.tt/yw5Qxq2 https://ift.tt/6ywrMIE
Special Protection After the Cutro Decree: The Bologna Court Confirms the Importance of Integration and Private Life Welcome to a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. My name is Fabio Loscerbo, and I am an immigration lawyer. Today we will discuss two important decisions issued by the Bologna Court on May 22, 2026. These rulings confirm a principle that could have a significant impact on many pending special protection cases in Italy. The cases involved two Moroccan citizens whose applications for international protection had been rejected by the Territorial Commission. However, during the court proceedings, a crucial fact emerged: both individuals had built a genuine life in Italy through regular employment, stable housing, social relationships, and compliance with Italian laws. The most significant aspect of these decisions is the Court's reliance on Italian Supreme Court ruling number 13309 of 2025. According to the Bologna Court, the Cutro Decree did not eliminate the protection of a foreign national's private and family life. Even after the 2023 legislative reforms, constitutional and international obligations still require authorities to consider a person's level of integration into Italian society. The judges emphasized that the more a person has established their life in Italy, the more serious the consequences of removal may be. Such removal can violate the right to private and family life protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as fundamental principles of the Italian Constitution. The assessment is not limited to employment alone but includes the overall social, personal, and family integration achieved in Italy. In the first case, the Court considered years of employment in the construction sector, independent housing, and the achievement of an Italian driving licence. In the second case, the Court highlighted a permanent employment contract, attendance at Italian language courses, autonomous housing, and the absence of any criminal record or negative conduct. Based on these factors, the Bologna Court granted both applicants a two-year renewable special protection residence permit, allowing them to work legally in Italy. These decisions confirm that integration remains a key factor in special protection cases and that the right to private and family life continues to play a central role even under the legal framework introduced after the Cutro Decree. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Immigration Law podcast. I am Fabio Loscerbo, and I look forward to seeing you in the next episode. Special Protection After the Cutro Decree: The Bologna Court Confirms the Importance of Integration and Private Life Welcome to a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. My name is Fabio Loscerbo, and I am an immigration lawyer. Today we will discuss two important decisions issued by the Bologna Court on May 22, 2026. These rulings confirm a principle that could have a significant impact on many pending special protection cases in Italy. The cases involved two Moroccan citizens whose applications for international protection had been rejected by the Territorial Commission. However, during the court proceedings, a crucial fact emerged: both individuals had built a genuine life in Italy through regular employment, stable housing, social relationships, and compliance with Italian laws. The most significant aspect of these decisions is the Court's reliance on Italian Supreme Court ruling number 13309 of 2025. According to the Bologna Court, the Cutro Decree did not eliminate the protection of a foreign national's private and family life. Even after the 2023 legislative reforms, constitutional and international obligations still require authorities to consider a person's level of integration into Italian society. The judges emphasized that the more a person has established their life in Italy, the more serious the consequences of removal may be. Such removal can violate the right to private and family life protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as fundamental principles of the Italian Constitution. The assessment is not limited to employment alone but includes the overall social, personal, and family integration achieved in Italy. In the first case, the Court considered years of employment in the construction sector, independent housing, and the achievement of an Italian driving licence. In the second case, the Court highlighted a permanent employment contract, attendance at Italian language courses, autonomous housing, and the absence of any criminal record or negative conduct. Based on these factors, the Bologna Court granted both applicants a two-year renewable special protection residence permit, allowing them to work legally in Italy. These decisions confirm that integration remains a key factor in special protection cases and that the right to private and family life continues to play a central role even under the legal framework introduced after the Cutro Decree. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Immigration Law podcast. I am Fabio Loscerbo, and I look forward to seeing you in the next episode. https://ift.tt/yw5Qxq2 https://p16-common-sign.tiktokcdn-eu.com/tos-no1a-p-0037-no/owAVDEgxIXqD8cCHQB8BMkF3VHMFeFfn4bAIbQ~tplv-tiktokx-cropcenter-q:300:400:q70.jpeg?dr=9232&refresh_token=4e191308&x-expires=1782885600&x-signature=pqvgabNbr3NGEGFVrWDfsubjQcg%3D&t=bacd0480&ps=933b5bde&shp=d05b14bd&shcp=8aecc5ac&idc=no1a&s=TIKTOK_FOR_DEVELOPER&sc=cover&biz_tag=tt_video
Un travailleur peut-il perdre son autorisation de travail à cause des erreurs de son employeur ?
https://ift.tt/0KPRFHB
via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frlT0mtsQe4