martedì 9 giugno 2026
https://ift.tt/8VCHI53 Ascolta "Work Permit Clearance and Residence Permit: what happens if the employer changes?" su Spreaker. https://ift.tt/2Qi0Nsu
Italian Court Confirms Strict Link Between Work Permit Clearance and Employer in Residence Permit Conversions https://ift.tt/u15EAWG 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://ift.tt/xKQyhet https://ift.tt/2Qi0Nsu
Signalement SIS et refus de visa : pas de refus automatiques https://ift.tt/8fjmtZu https://ift.tt/2Qi0Nsu
lunedì 8 giugno 2026
SIS Alert and Visa Refusal: No Automatic Denials https://ift.tt/SCV80MI https://ift.tt/PwJxraV
New on TikTok: SIS Alert and Visa Refusal: Entry Visas Cannot Be Denied Automatically Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and today we will discuss an increasingly important issue in European immigration law: the relationship between SIS alerts and the refusal of entry visas. Many people discover the existence of a Schengen Information System alert, the so-called SIS alert, only when an Italian consulate rejects their visa application. This frequently happens with study visas, work visas, or family reunification visas. For years, in many cases, the existence of an SIS alert was treated almost as an automatic ground for refusal. But recent case law is now changing this approach significantly. An important judgment issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, Second Bis Section, published on May 6, 2026, annulled the refusal of a study visa issued by the Italian Consulate in Istanbul against a student who had been flagged in the SIS by Greece. The Court clarified that it is not enough to generically refer to the existence of an SIS alert in order to deny a visa. The administration must instead carry out a concrete, individual, and proportionate assessment of the foreign national’s situation. The decision also refers to the recent Constitutional Court judgment number 6 of 2026, which affirmed a very important principle: an SIS alert does not automatically prevent the issuance of a residence permit or an entry visa. According to EU Regulation number 1861 of 2018, Member States must consult each other and verify whether the foreign national actually represents a current threat to public order or public security. This means that a consulate cannot simply say: “there is an SIS alert, therefore the visa is refused.” A real investigation is required. A genuine statement of reasons is required. A concrete assessment of the applicant’s personal situation is required. This is a very important development because it opens new avenues of protection for individuals whose visas were denied solely because of a Schengen alert. In the coming years, the SIS system will become increasingly central in European immigration law and in the balance between security, freedom of movement, and individual rights. Thank you for listening to this new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and I will see you in the next episode. https://ift.tt/DZVTj7N https://ift.tt/nTM4dri https://ift.tt/PwJxraV
SIS Alert and Visa Refusal: Entry Visas Cannot Be Denied Automatically Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and today we will discuss an increasingly important issue in European immigration law: the relationship between SIS alerts and the refusal of entry visas. Many people discover the existence of a Schengen Information System alert, the so-called SIS alert, only when an Italian consulate rejects their visa application. This frequently happens with study visas, work visas, or family reunification visas. For years, in many cases, the existence of an SIS alert was treated almost as an automatic ground for refusal. But recent case law is now changing this approach significantly. An important judgment issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, Second Bis Section, published on May 6, 2026, annulled the refusal of a study visa issued by the Italian Consulate in Istanbul against a student who had been flagged in the SIS by Greece. The Court clarified that it is not enough to generically refer to the existence of an SIS alert in order to deny a visa. The administration must instead carry out a concrete, individual, and proportionate assessment of the foreign national’s situation. The decision also refers to the recent Constitutional Court judgment number 6 of 2026, which affirmed a very important principle: an SIS alert does not automatically prevent the issuance of a residence permit or an entry visa. According to EU Regulation number 1861 of 2018, Member States must consult each other and verify whether the foreign national actually represents a current threat to public order or public security. This means that a consulate cannot simply say: “there is an SIS alert, therefore the visa is refused.” A real investigation is required. A genuine statement of reasons is required. A concrete assessment of the applicant’s personal situation is required. This is a very important development because it opens new avenues of protection for individuals whose visas were denied solely because of a Schengen alert. In the coming years, the SIS system will become increasingly central in European immigration law and in the balance between security, freedom of movement, and individual rights. Thank you for listening to this new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and I will see you in the next episode. SIS Alert and Visa Refusal: Entry Visas Cannot Be Denied Automatically Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and today we will discuss an increasingly important issue in European immigration law: the relationship between SIS alerts and the refusal of entry visas. Many people discover the existence of a Schengen Information System alert, the so-called SIS alert, only when an Italian consulate rejects their visa application. This frequently happens with study visas, work visas, or family reunification visas. For years, in many cases, the existence of an SIS alert was treated almost as an automatic ground for refusal. But recent case law is now changing this approach significantly. An important judgment issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, Second Bis Section, published on May 6, 2026, annulled the refusal of a study visa issued by the Italian Consulate in Istanbul against a student who had been flagged in the SIS by Greece. The Court clarified that it is not enough to generically refer to the existence of an SIS alert in order to deny a visa. The administration must instead carry out a concrete, individual, and proportionate assessment of the foreign national’s situation. The decision also refers to the recent Constitutional Court judgment number 6 of 2026, which affirmed a very important principle: an SIS alert does not automatically prevent the issuance of a residence permit or an entry visa. According to EU Regulation number 1861 of 2018, Member States must consult each other and verify whether the foreign national actually represents a current threat to public order or public security. This means that a consulate cannot simply say: “there is an SIS alert, therefore the visa is refused.” A real investigation is required. A genuine statement of reasons is required. A concrete assessment of the applicant’s personal situation is required. This is a very important development because it opens new avenues of protection for individuals whose visas were denied solely because of a Schengen alert. In the coming years, the SIS system will become increasingly central in European immigration law and in the balance between security, freedom of movement, and individual rights. Thank you for listening to this new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and I will see you in the next episode. https://ift.tt/nTM4dri https://p16-common-sign.tiktokcdn-eu.com/tos-no1a-p-0037-no/oA8CrUdVAwfQEeEeLAgXsHp8HqXASWQMFhIDoX~tplv-tiktokx-cropcenter-q:300:400:q70.jpeg?dr=9232&refresh_token=79315144&x-expires=1781024400&x-signature=aAFAsd3rjFGB3LhKkCbZDawyAHo%3D&t=bacd0480&ps=933b5bde&shp=d05b14bd&shcp=8aecc5ac&idc=no1a&biz_tag=tt_video&s=TIKTOK_FOR_DEVELOPER&sc=cover
New on TikTok: SIS Alert and Visa Refusal: Entry Visas Cannot Be Denied Automatically Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and today we will discuss an increasingly important issue in European immigration law: the relationship between SIS alerts and the refusal of entry visas. Many people discover the existence of a Schengen Information System alert, the so-called SIS alert, only when an Italian consulate rejects their visa application. This frequently happens with study visas, work visas, or family reunification visas. For years, in many cases, the existence of an SIS alert was treated almost as an automatic ground for refusal. But recent case law is now changing this approach significantly. An important judgment issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, Second Bis Section, published on May 6, 2026, annulled the refusal of a study visa issued by the Italian Consulate in Istanbul against a student who had been flagged in the SIS by Greece. The Court clarified that it is not enough to generically refer to the existence of an SIS alert in order to deny a visa. The administration must instead carry out a concrete, individual, and proportionate assessment of the foreign national’s situation. The decision also refers to the recent Constitutional Court judgment number 6 of 2026, which affirmed a very important principle: an SIS alert does not automatically prevent the issuance of a residence permit or an entry visa. According to EU Regulation number 1861 of 2018, Member States must consult each other and verify whether the foreign national actually represents a current threat to public order or public security. This means that a consulate cannot simply say: “there is an SIS alert, therefore the visa is refused.” A real investigation is required. A genuine statement of reasons is required. A concrete assessment of the applicant’s personal situation is required. This is a very important development because it opens new avenues of protection for individuals whose visas were denied solely because of a Schengen alert. In the coming years, the SIS system will become increasingly central in European immigration law and in the balance between security, freedom of movement, and individual rights. Thank you for listening to this new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. I am attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and I will see you in the next episode.
domenica 7 giugno 2026
القضاء الإيطالي يؤكد الارتباط الصارم بين تصريح العمل وصاحب العمل في إجراءات الإقامة
القضاء الإيطالي يؤكد الارتباط الصارم بين تصريح العمل وصاحب العمل في إجراءات الإقامة
أعادت محكمة إدارية إيطالية فتح النقاش حول واحدة من أكثر القضايا حساسية في نظام الهجرة الإيطالي، وهي العلاقة بين تصريح العمل المعروف باسم “Nulla Osta” وصاحب العمل الذي بدأ الإجراءات الإدارية الخاصة بالعامل الأجنبي.
الحكم الصادر عن المحكمة الإدارية الإقليمية في إيميليا رومانيا بتاريخ 21 مايو 2026 يتعلق بمواطن أجنبي كان قد بدأ إجراءات تحويل تصريح إقامته من التدريب المهني إلى العمل بعقد عمل تابع.
في هذه القضية، حصل العامل على تصريح العمل من خلال صاحب عمل محدد، كما وقّع عقد الإقامة أمام مكتب الهجرة المختص. إلا أن علاقة العمل الأصلية لم تبدأ فعليًا، وانتقل العامل لاحقًا للعمل لدى شركة أخرى.
بعد هذا التغيير، قررت إدارة الهجرة في مدينة فورلي اعتبار طلب تحويل تصريح الإقامة غير مقبول، بحجة أن صاحب العمل الذي بدأ الإجراءات الإدارية ليس هو نفسه الذي قام فعليًا بتوظيف العامل الأجنبي.
المحكمة الإدارية أيدت موقف الإدارة الإيطالية.
ووفقًا للقضاة، فإن نظام الهجرة الإيطالي يقوم على وجود استمرارية واضحة بين صاحب العمل الذي يطلب تصريح العمل، وعقد الإقامة، وعلاقة العمل الفعلية التي يتم إنشاؤها مع العامل الأجنبي.
كما أوضحت المحكمة أن هذا التفسير يهدف إلى منع إساءة استخدام نظام الهجرة، وخاصة الحالات التي يتم فيها فتح الإجراءات دون وجود نية حقيقية لتوظيف العامل الأجنبي.
ويعكس هذا الحكم رؤية تقليدية متجذرة في نظام الهجرة الإيطالي، حيث يلعب صاحب العمل دورًا أساسيًا ومحوريًا في إجراءات دخول العامل الأجنبي وتسوية وضعه القانوني.
لكن القرار يكشف أيضًا عن التوتر المتزايد بين صرامة الإجراءات الإدارية والواقع الحديث لسوق العمل.
فسوق العمل اليوم يتسم بكثرة العقود المؤقتة، والتنقل السريع بين الشركات، وحالات عدم الاستقرار المهني. وفي هذا السياق، فإن ربط الوضع القانوني للعامل الأجنبي بصاحب عمل واحد فقط قد يؤدي إلى نتائج قاسية للغاية.
وهناك نقطة مهمة ركزت عليها المحكمة بشكل واضح.
فقد أشارت إلى أن مقدم الطلب لم يقدم أي تفسير ملموس حول أسباب عدم بدء علاقة العمل الأولى فعليًا.
وقد تصبح هذه النقطة حاسمة في القضايا المستقبلية.
فالعامل الأجنبي الذي يستطيع توثيق أسباب تغيير صاحب العمل، مع إثبات استمرارية العمل والاندماج الاجتماعي، قد يتمكن من الحصول على تقييم قانوني مختلف عن التفسير المتشدد الذي اعتمدته هذه القضية.
وبذلك يوجّه الحكم رسالة واضحة للعاملين الأجانب ولمحامي الهجرة في إيطاليا: الاتساق الإجرائي المرتبط بتصريح العمل لا يزال عنصرًا أساسيًا في إجراءات تحويل تصاريح الإقامة.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
La justicia italiana confirma el vínculo estricto entre la autorización de trabajo y el empleador en los procedimientos de residencia
La justicia italiana confirma el vínculo estricto entre la autorización de trabajo y el empleador en los procedimientos de residencia
Una reciente sentencia del Tribunal Administrativo Regional de Emilia-Romaña vuelve a poner en el centro del debate uno de los aspectos más delicados del sistema migratorio italiano: la relación entre el “nulla osta”, es decir, la autorización administrativa de trabajo, y el empleador que inició el procedimiento migratorio.
La decisión, publicada el 21 de mayo de 2026, se refiere a un ciudadano extranjero que había iniciado el procedimiento para convertir su permiso de residencia de prácticas en un permiso de residencia por trabajo subordinado.
En el caso analizado, el trabajador había obtenido el nulla osta a través de un empleador específico y había firmado el contrato de residencia ante la oficina de inmigración. Sin embargo, la relación laboral inicialmente prevista nunca llegó a comenzar. Posteriormente, el trabajador inició una nueva relación laboral con otra empresa.
Tras este cambio, la Questura de Forlì declaró inadmisible la solicitud de conversión del permiso de residencia, argumentando que el empleador que había iniciado el procedimiento administrativo no era el mismo que finalmente contrató al trabajador extranjero.
El Tribunal Administrativo confirmó la posición de la administración.
Según los jueces, el sistema migratorio italiano exige continuidad entre el empleador que solicita el nulla osta, el contrato de residencia y la relación laboral efectivamente iniciada con el ciudadano extranjero.
La sentencia también subraya que esta interpretación tiene como finalidad evitar abusos del sistema migratorio y prevenir procedimientos iniciados sin una verdadera intención de contratar al trabajador.
La decisión refleja una visión tradicional del derecho migratorio italiano, históricamente basada en el papel central del empleador dentro del proceso de entrada y regularización del trabajador extranjero.
Al mismo tiempo, la sentencia pone de relieve la creciente tensión entre la rigidez de los procedimientos administrativos y la realidad actual del mercado laboral.
Hoy en día, el trabajo está marcado por contratos temporales, cambios frecuentes de empresa, subcontratación y situaciones de precariedad. En este contexto, vincular de forma demasiado estricta el estatus migratorio de una persona a un único empleador puede generar consecuencias especialmente graves.
Existe además un aspecto muy relevante en la motivación de la sentencia.
El Tribunal destacó que el solicitante no había aportado ninguna explicación concreta sobre las razones por las cuales la primera relación laboral nunca llegó a iniciarse realmente.
Este elemento podría resultar decisivo en futuros litigios.
Un trabajador extranjero que logre documentar adecuadamente las razones del cambio de empleador, demostrando además continuidad laboral e integración social, podría diferenciar su situación respecto de la interpretación restrictiva adoptada en esta decisión.
La sentencia envía así un mensaje claro tanto a los trabajadores extranjeros como a los profesionales del derecho migratorio: en el sistema italiano actual, la coherencia procedimental vinculada al nulla osta sigue siendo un elemento central en las conversiones de permisos de residencia.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428