New on TikTok: Permis de séjour pour travail : une condamnation pénale ne suffit pas pour refuser le renouvellement Bonjour, je suis Maître Fabio Loscerbo et voici un nouvel épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Aujourd’hui, nous parlons d’une décision importante du Tribunal Administratif Régional d’Émilie-Romagne, publiée le 12 juin 2026. Cette affaire concerne le renouvellement d’un permis de séjour pour travail et le lien entre les condamnations pénales et le droit de séjourner légalement en Italie. L’affaire concerne un citoyen marocain arrivé en Italie en 2013 en tant que mineur non accompagné. Après plusieurs années de séjour régulier et d’activité professionnelle, la Préfecture de police de Modène a refusé de renouveler son permis de séjour pour travail en raison d’une condamnation liée à des infractions en matière de stupéfiants. L’intéressé a contesté cette décision devant le tribunal administratif, en soutenant que l’administration s’était limitée à invoquer la condamnation sans examiner concrètement sa situation personnelle. Le tribunal lui a donné raison. Selon les juges, une condamnation pénale ne peut pas entraîner automatiquement le refus ou le retrait d’un permis de séjour. L’administration doit procéder à une évaluation concrète de la dangerosité sociale de la personne, en tenant compte de son parcours de vie, de son intégration sociale et professionnelle, de la gravité des faits reprochés ainsi que de toutes les circonstances pertinentes de l’affaire. La décision rappelle également les principes affirmés par la Cour constitutionnelle italienne et par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, selon lesquels il est nécessaire de trouver un équilibre entre les exigences de sécurité publique et le droit de l’étranger au respect de sa vie privée et familiale. Dans cette affaire, le tribunal a constaté que la décision de refus ne contenait aucune véritable analyse de la dangerosité sociale du demandeur. Pour cette raison, le refus a été annulé et l’administration devra réexaminer le dossier à la lumière des principes énoncés par le tribunal. Cette décision confirme une règle fondamentale du droit de l’immigration : les demandes de permis de séjour ne peuvent pas être tranchées par des automatismes. Chaque situation doit être examinée individuellement, avec attention et objectivité. Merci d’avoir écouté cet épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Je suis Maître Fabio Loscerbo et je vous donne rendez-vous pour le prochain épisode. https://ift.tt/E4KSrYP https://ift.tt/9tXoQBK https://ift.tt/I7NYS6l

via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/toRxOr8

Permis de séjour pour travail : une condamnation pénale ne suffit pas pour refuser le renouvellement Bonjour, je suis Maître Fabio Loscerbo et voici un nouvel épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Aujourd’hui, nous parlons d’une décision importante du Tribunal Administratif Régional d’Émilie-Romagne, publiée le 12 juin 2026. Cette affaire concerne le renouvellement d’un permis de séjour pour travail et le lien entre les condamnations pénales et le droit de séjourner légalement en Italie. L’affaire concerne un citoyen marocain arrivé en Italie en 2013 en tant que mineur non accompagné. Après plusieurs années de séjour régulier et d’activité professionnelle, la Préfecture de police de Modène a refusé de renouveler son permis de séjour pour travail en raison d’une condamnation liée à des infractions en matière de stupéfiants. L’intéressé a contesté cette décision devant le tribunal administratif, en soutenant que l’administration s’était limitée à invoquer la condamnation sans examiner concrètement sa situation personnelle. Le tribunal lui a donné raison. Selon les juges, une condamnation pénale ne peut pas entraîner automatiquement le refus ou le retrait d’un permis de séjour. L’administration doit procéder à une évaluation concrète de la dangerosité sociale de la personne, en tenant compte de son parcours de vie, de son intégration sociale et professionnelle, de la gravité des faits reprochés ainsi que de toutes les circonstances pertinentes de l’affaire. La décision rappelle également les principes affirmés par la Cour constitutionnelle italienne et par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, selon lesquels il est nécessaire de trouver un équilibre entre les exigences de sécurité publique et le droit de l’étranger au respect de sa vie privée et familiale. Dans cette affaire, le tribunal a constaté que la décision de refus ne contenait aucune véritable analyse de la dangerosité sociale du demandeur. Pour cette raison, le refus a été annulé et l’administration devra réexaminer le dossier à la lumière des principes énoncés par le tribunal. Cette décision confirme une règle fondamentale du droit de l’immigration : les demandes de permis de séjour ne peuvent pas être tranchées par des automatismes. Chaque situation doit être examinée individuellement, avec attention et objectivité. Merci d’avoir écouté cet épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Je suis Maître Fabio Loscerbo et je vous donne rendez-vous pour le prochain épisode. Permis de séjour pour travail : une condamnation pénale ne suffit pas pour refuser le renouvellement Bonjour, je suis Maître Fabio Loscerbo et voici un nouvel épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Aujourd’hui, nous parlons d’une décision importante du Tribunal Administratif Régional d’Émilie-Romagne, publiée le 12 juin 2026. Cette affaire concerne le renouvellement d’un permis de séjour pour travail et le lien entre les condamnations pénales et le droit de séjourner légalement en Italie. L’affaire concerne un citoyen marocain arrivé en Italie en 2013 en tant que mineur non accompagné. Après plusieurs années de séjour régulier et d’activité professionnelle, la Préfecture de police de Modène a refusé de renouveler son permis de séjour pour travail en raison d’une condamnation liée à des infractions en matière de stupéfiants. L’intéressé a contesté cette décision devant le tribunal administratif, en soutenant que l’administration s’était limitée à invoquer la condamnation sans examiner concrètement sa situation personnelle. Le tribunal lui a donné raison. Selon les juges, une condamnation pénale ne peut pas entraîner automatiquement le refus ou le retrait d’un permis de séjour. L’administration doit procéder à une évaluation concrète de la dangerosité sociale de la personne, en tenant compte de son parcours de vie, de son intégration sociale et professionnelle, de la gravité des faits reprochés ainsi que de toutes les circonstances pertinentes de l’affaire. La décision rappelle également les principes affirmés par la Cour constitutionnelle italienne et par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, selon lesquels il est nécessaire de trouver un équilibre entre les exigences de sécurité publique et le droit de l’étranger au respect de sa vie privée et familiale. Dans cette affaire, le tribunal a constaté que la décision de refus ne contenait aucune véritable analyse de la dangerosité sociale du demandeur. Pour cette raison, le refus a été annulé et l’administration devra réexaminer le dossier à la lumière des principes énoncés par le tribunal. Cette décision confirme une règle fondamentale du droit de l’immigration : les demandes de permis de séjour ne peuvent pas être tranchées par des automatismes. Chaque situation doit être examinée individuellement, avec attention et objectivité. Merci d’avoir écouté cet épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Je suis Maître Fabio Loscerbo et je vous donne rendez-vous pour le prochain épisode. https://ift.tt/9tXoQBK https://p16-common-sign.tiktokcdn-eu.com/tos-no1a-p-0037-no/owFzzqRBJXNECHFV4rQDeqAkuKgfYl6apBLIFD~tplv-tiktokx-cropcenter-q:300:400:q70.jpeg?dr=9232&refresh_token=ca6d7ce2&x-expires=1783756800&x-signature=r%2FzGS33IMG%2FUcF7Cobl8QFo36Qs%3D&t=bacd0480&ps=933b5bde&shp=d05b14bd&shcp=8aecc5ac&idc=no1a&biz_tag=tt_video&s=TIKTOK_FOR_DEVELOPER&sc=cover

via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/toRxOr8

 

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

Ascolta "Seasonal Work and Residence Permits: The Emilia-Romagna Administrative Court Closes the Door on Job-Seeker Permits" su Spreaker.

Work Residence Permit: A Criminal Conviction Is Not Enough to Refuse Renewal Good morning, I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this is a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. Today, we are discussing an important decision issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna and published on June 12, 2026. The case concerns the renewal of a work residence permit and the relationship between criminal convictions and the right to remain legally in Italy. The case involved a Moroccan citizen who arrived in Italy in 2013 as an unaccompanied minor. After years of lawful residence and employment, the Police Headquarters of Modena refused to renew his work residence permit because of a criminal conviction related to drug offenses. The applicant challenged the decision before the Administrative Court, arguing that the authorities had relied solely on the conviction without properly examining his personal circumstances. The Court agreed. According to the judgment, a criminal conviction cannot automatically lead to the refusal or revocation of a residence permit. The administration must carry out a concrete assessment of whether the individual actually represents a danger to society, taking into account factors such as personal history, social and professional integration, the seriousness of the offense, and all relevant circumstances of the case. The Court also referred to the principles established by the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, which require a fair balance between public security concerns and the foreign national’s right to private and family life. In this case, the judges found that the decision issued by the Police Headquarters lacked any real assessment of the applicant’s social dangerousness. For this reason, the refusal was annulled, and the administration will now have to reconsider the application in light of the principles established by the Court. This decision confirms an important rule of immigration law: residence permit cases cannot be decided through automatic mechanisms. Every individual situation must be examined carefully, fairly, and on its own merits. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Immigration Law podcast. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and I will see you in the next episode. Work Residence Permit: A Criminal Conviction Is Not Enough to Refuse Renewal Good morning, I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this is a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. Today, we are discussing an important decision issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna and published on June 12, 2026. The case concerns the renewal of a work residence permit and the relationship between criminal convictions and the right to remain legally in Italy. The case involved a Moroccan citizen who arrived in Italy in 2013 as an unaccompanied minor. After years of lawful residence and employment, the Police Headquarters of Modena refused to renew his work residence permit because of a criminal conviction related to drug offenses. The applicant challenged the decision before the Administrative Court, arguing that the authorities had relied solely on the conviction without properly examining his personal circumstances. The Court agreed. According to the judgment, a criminal conviction cannot automatically lead to the refusal or revocation of a residence permit. The administration must carry out a concrete assessment of whether the individual actually represents a danger to society, taking into account factors such as personal history, social and professional integration, the seriousness of the offense, and all relevant circumstances of the case. The Court also referred to the principles established by the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, which require a fair balance between public security concerns and the foreign national’s right to private and family life. In this case, the judges found that the decision issued by the Police Headquarters lacked any real assessment of the applicant’s social dangerousness. For this reason, the refusal was annulled, and the administration will now have to reconsider the application in light of the principles established by the Court. This decision confirms an important rule of immigration law: residence permit cases cannot be decided through automatic mechanisms. Every individual situation must be examined carefully, fairly, and on its own merits. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Immigration Law podcast. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and I will see you in the next episode. https://ift.tt/5LlZbGA https://p16-common-sign.tiktokcdn-eu.com/tos-no1a-p-0037-no/oID8LExDNQJLIFgCxkLfhif1TqGcBVgraqIRAF~tplv-tiktokx-cropcenter-q:300:400:q70.jpeg?dr=9232&refresh_token=ea86ceb2&x-expires=1783670400&x-signature=tq%2FZlR1JCiQEwoU5E1tDf8Id5QY%3D&t=bacd0480&ps=933b5bde&shp=d05b14bd&shcp=8aecc5ac&idc=no1a&biz_tag=tt_video&s=TIKTOK_FOR_DEVELOPER&sc=cover

via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/7OXCjRr

Permis saisonnier expiré : la conversion reste possible https://ift.tt/TobyRWu https://ift.tt/EOc4eIt

via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/yiFE4CG

انتهاء تصريح العمل الموسمي: هل لا يزال من الممكن تحويله إلى تصريح عمل؟

انتهاء تصريح العمل الموسمي: هل لا يزال من الممكن تحويله إلى تصريح عمل؟ by Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
https://ift.tt/sSkKaXQ
via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FV1r-QlTg8

Seasonal Work: No Job-Seeker Permit Without a Job

 

A Criminal Conviction Is Not Enough to Refuse a Work Residence Permit Good morning, I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo and this is a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. An important decision from the Regional Administrative Court of Bologna confirms that a criminal conviction alone is not enough to refuse the renewal of a work residence permit. Authorities must assess the person's actual situation and social integration before making a decision. Thank you for listening. See you in the next episode. A Criminal Conviction Is Not Enough to Refuse a Work Residence Permit Good morning, I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo and this is a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. An important decision from the Regional Administrative Court of Bologna confirms that a criminal conviction alone is not enough to refuse the renewal of a work residence permit. Authorities must assess the person's actual situation and social integration before making a decision. Thank you for listening. See you in the next episode. https://ift.tt/QZFKMqD https://p16-common-sign.tiktokcdn-eu.com/tos-no1a-p-0037-no/ow7aEbOLgMwVAEe1q2IQ1NFWCAFtkRfEBwBzD3~tplv-tiktokx-cropcenter-q:300:400:q70.jpeg?dr=9232&refresh_token=020b076f&x-expires=1783584000&x-signature=qRo%2FIomW%2Bf3WOaxaLL%2B0TD6Sp%2B0%3D&t=bacd0480&ps=933b5bde&shp=d05b14bd&shcp=8aecc5ac&idc=no1a&s=TIKTOK_FOR_DEVELOPER&sc=cover&biz_tag=tt_video

via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/yiFE4CG

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) https://ift.tt/vRplDKc 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://ift.tt/0LJoYAw 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. https://ift.tt/oqFCWbd

via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/QiKFALD

Expired Seasonal Permit: Can It Still Be Converted into a Work Permit?

Expired Seasonal Permit: Can It Still Be Converted into a Work Permit? by Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
https://ift.tt/aemGdiu
via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnd5efMSUFQ

Permesso di soggiorno e precedenti penali: il Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale esclude gli automatismi quando esistono legami familiari

Permesso di soggiorno e precedenti penali: il Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale esclude gli automatismi quando esistono legami familiari Benvenuti a un nuovo episodio del podcast "Diritto dell'Immigrazione". Io sono l'Avv. Fabio Loscerbo e oggi analizziamo una sentenza di grande interesse pratico per tutti coloro che assistono cittadini stranieri nei procedimenti di rilascio o rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno. Vedremo perché una condanna penale, da sola, non è sempre sufficiente a giustificare un diniego e quali obblighi gravano sull'Amministrazione quando lo straniero ha costruito una reale vita familiare in Italia. La decisione di cui parliamo è quella del Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Emilia-Romagna, Sezione Prima, emessa il 9 giugno 2026 e pubblicata il 20 giugno 2026, sentenza numero 1193 del Registro delle Sentenze, pronunciata nel ricorso numero 230 del 2023. Il caso riguardava un cittadino nigeriano al quale la Questura di Bologna aveva negato il rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno sulla base di una precedente condanna per un reato in materia di sostanze stupefacenti, ritenuta automaticamente ostativa al rilascio del titolo. Il Tribunale, però, ricorda un principio fondamentale del diritto dell'immigrazione: quando lo straniero ha legami familiari effettivi nel territorio italiano, l'Amministrazione non può limitarsi a richiamare il precedente penale. È invece obbligata a svolgere una valutazione concreta della situazione personale. Nel caso esaminato, il ricorrente aveva dimostrato di vivere stabilmente con la propria compagna e con la figlia e di svolgere un'attività lavorativa regolare. Nonostante questi elementi fossero stati rappresentati già durante il procedimento amministrativo, la Questura li aveva sostanzialmente ignorati, limitandosi ad affermare che le osservazioni difensive non giustificavano una diversa decisione. Secondo il Tribunale questo approccio è illegittimo. Richiamando la giurisprudenza della Corte costituzionale e del Consiglio di Stato, la sentenza ribadisce che l'interesse dello Stato alla tutela dell'ordine pubblico deve essere bilanciato con il diritto all'unità familiare e con il diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare riconosciuto dall'articolo 8 della Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell'Uomo. Ciò impone all'Amministrazione di motivare in modo puntuale le ragioni per cui, nel caso concreto, il precedente penale debba prevalere sui legami familiari e sul percorso di integrazione dello straniero. Per questo motivo il Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale ha accolto il ricorso, annullando il provvedimento di diniego e ordinando alla Questura di riesaminare l'istanza nel rispetto dei principi affermati dalla sentenza. Questa pronuncia conferma un principio che ogni operatore del diritto dell'immigrazione dovrebbe tenere ben presente: la presenza di una condanna penale non autorizza decisioni automatiche. Ogni vicenda deve essere esaminata nella sua concretezza, valutando la persona, la sua storia, la sua famiglia e il suo livello di integrazione nel territorio italiano. Io sono l'Avv. Fabio Loscerbo. Grazie per aver ascoltato questo episodio del podcast "Diritto dell'Immigrazione". Vi aspetto nel prossimo appuntamento per continuare ad approfondire insieme le più importanti novità della giurisprudenza e della normativa in materia di immigrazione.

Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.

via Diritto dell'Immigrazione https://ift.tt/7ywkxDu

Une condamnation pénale ne suffit pas pour refuser un permis de séjour pour travail Bonjour, je suis Maître Fabio Loscerbo et voici un nouvel épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Une importante décision du Tribunal administratif de Bologne confirme qu’une condamnation pénale ne suffit pas, à elle seule, pour refuser le renouvellement d’un permis de séjour pour travail. L’administration doit examiner concrètement la situation personnelle et l’intégration de l’étranger. Merci de votre écoute et à bientôt pour un prochain épisode. Une condamnation pénale ne suffit pas pour refuser un permis de séjour pour travail Bonjour, je suis Maître Fabio Loscerbo et voici un nouvel épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Une importante décision du Tribunal administratif de Bologne confirme qu’une condamnation pénale ne suffit pas, à elle seule, pour refuser le renouvellement d’un permis de séjour pour travail. L’administration doit examiner concrètement la situation personnelle et l’intégration de l’étranger. Merci de votre écoute et à bientôt pour un prochain épisode. https://ift.tt/ye4BEvT https://p16-common-sign.tiktokcdn-eu.com/tos-no1a-p-0037-no/osP6iRUFwm3KAEc01GIUvti7BnCtyofEAcCjBb~tplv-tiktokx-cropcenter-q:300:400:q70.jpeg?dr=9232&refresh_token=a58ff1e3&x-expires=1783497600&x-signature=v%2F8ZCKXUiT3U4bvyTbm8Kvmv5MY%3D&t=bacd0480&ps=933b5bde&shp=d05b14bd&shcp=8aecc5ac&idc=no1a&sc=cover&biz_tag=tt_video&s=TIKTOK_FOR_DEVELOPER

via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/QiKFALD