New on TikTok: Bölüm Başlığı: Mevsimlik çalışma izninin dönüştürülmesi: Neden izin süresinin dolması yabancı işçiyi engelleyemez Podcast – Türkçe Versiyon Günaydın ve Göç Hukuku podcast’imizin yeni bir bölümüne hoş geldiniz. Bugün, idarede hâlâ yanlış uygulamalara ve gereksiz davalara yol açan temel bir konuyu ele alıyoruz: mevsimlik çalışma izninin bağımlı çalışma iznine dönüştürülmesi ve özellikle mevsimlik iznin süresinin dolmasının bu dönüşüm talebini geçersiz kılıp kılamayacağı meselesi. Hareket noktamız, Ligurya Bölgesel İdare Mahkemesi’nin yedi Temmuz iki bin yirmi beş tarihinde yayımlanan bir kararıdır. Olay basittir: Mevsimlik çalışma iznine sahip bir yabancı işçi, dönüşüm talebini iznin süresi dolduktan sonra yapar. Valilik bu talebi reddeder ve dönüşümün yalnızca izin hâlâ yürürlükteyse mümkün olacağını ileri sürer. Ret kararı ilk olarak işçinin yazılı görüşleri dikkate alınmadan verilmiş, ardından neredeyse otomatik bir şekilde aynı gerekçeyle tekrar edilmiştir. Mahkeme bu yaklaşımı tamamen reddeder ve yerleşik içtihata açıkça atıfta bulunur. Kararda şu ifadeye yer verilir: “Oturma izninin dönüştürülebilmesi için, müracaat sırasında geçerli bir oturma izninin ibraz edilmesini gerektiren herhangi bir yasal düzenleme bulunmamaktadır.” . Bu tespit son derece önemlidir, çünkü idarenin yıllardır uyguladığı bu şartın hiçbir hukuki dayanağı olmadığı net şekilde ortaya konmaktadır. İtalyan Göç Yasası, mevsimlik iznin dönüşüm talebi sırasında geçerli olmasını şart koşmaz. İkincil mevzuat bunu şart koşmaz. Hiçbir bakanlık genelgesi böyle bir zorunluluk getirmez. Kanunda öngörülmeyen bir şartın idare tarafından eklenmesi, yabancı işçinin çalışma sürecini doğrudan olumsuz etkileyen hukuka aykırı bir kısıtlama yaratır. Cenova’daki olay bu tür sapmaların etkisini çok net gösterir. Mahkemenin iki ayrı ihtiyati kararına rağmen, Valilik hareketsiz kalmış ve izin süresinin dolmasını gerekçe göstermeden talebi yeniden değerlendirmeyi reddetmiştir. Ancak mahkeme çok nettir: İdare dosyayı yeniden ele aldığında dönüşüm talebinin esasını incelemeli, bağımlı çalışma için gerekli maddi koşulların mevcut olup olmadığını değerlendirmeli ve başvuru sahibinin sürece katılımını güvence altına almalıdır. Mahkeme ayrıca Valiliğin işçinin sunduğu prosedürel beyanları incelemediğini ve bunları “kabul edilemez” diyerek gerekçesiz biçimde reddettiğini de belirtir. Bu da hukuki çerçevenin yanlış yorumlanmasına ek olarak ciddi bir usul hatasıdır. Bununla birlikte, asıl nokta tek bir cümlede özetlenebilir ve sıklıkla göz ardı edildiği için açıkça vurgulanmalıdır: Mevsimlik iznin süresinin dolması dönüşümü engellemez ve engelleyemez. Dönüşüm mekanizmasının amacı, yasal çalışma sürekliliğini güvence altına almak ve mevsimlik işçilere hâlihazırda kurulmuş iş ilişkilerini istikrarlı hâle getirme imkânı sunmaktır. Bu süreci, kanunda yer almayan biçimsel bir şarta bağlamak hem işçiyi hem de işvereni mağdur edecek mantıksız sonuçlar doğurur. Ligurya Bölgesel İdare Mahkemesi’nin kararı, bu nedenle, çok önemli bir mesaj verir: İdare, dönüşüm taleplerini süre doldu mu dolmadı mı diye bakmaksızın esas üzerinden değerlendirmelidir. Eğer geçerli bir iş teklifi varsa ve diğer koşullar sağlanmışsa, dönüşüm talebi, mevsimlik izin süresi bitmiş olsa dahi, incelenmek zorundadır. Bu mesaj herkes için önemlidir. İşçiler için, çünkü mesleki entegrasyon süreçlerinin var olmayan bir şarta dayanarak kesintiye uğratılamayacağını teyit eder. Valilikler için, çünkü uygulamalarını yasaya ve yerleşik içtihada uygun hâle getirmelerini zorunlu kılar. Hukukçular ve uzmanlar için ise, ulusal düzeyde artık oturmuş bulunan bir yorum çizgisini bir kez daha doğrular. Dinlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim. Dönüşüm mekanizmaları, çalışma ilişkileri ve ikamet istikrarı konusundaki yargı gelişmelerini yakından takip etmeye devam edeceğiz, çünkü göç politikasının gerçek işleyişi büyük ölçüde bu alanlarda şekillenmektedir.

https://ift.tt/qrbTQaP

New on TikTok: Leje qëndrimi për punë sezonale: kur refuzimi i konvertimit vjen sepse administrata i shpërfill vërejtjet e punëtorit Mirëmëngjes dhe mirë se erdhe në një episod të ri të podcastit E Drejta e Emigracionit. Sot trajtojmë një çështje shumë të zakonshme dhe shpesh vendimtare: konvertimin e lejes së qëndrimit për punë sezonale në leje qëndrimi për punë të varur. Ky është një hap thelbësor për shumë punëtorë të huaj, sepse nga zbatimi i saktë i procedurës varet qëndrueshmëria e qëndrimit të tyre në Itali dhe vazhdimësia e rrugës së tyre profesionale. Rasti që marrim si pikënisje është shqyrtuar nga Gjykata Administrative Rajonale e Kalabrisë, seksioni i Reggio Calabrias, në një vendim të publikuar më 24 nëntor 2025, në procedurën e regjistruar me numër 3 të vitit 2025. Gjykata e anuloi refuzimin e konvertimit sepse Prefektura kishte shpërfillur vërejtjet e paraqitura nga punëtori në përgjigje të njoftimit paraprak të refuzimit, edhe pse ato vërejtje ishin dorëzuar në mënyrë të rregullt dhe ishin bashkangjitur në dosjen administrative . Faktet janë të thjeshta. Punëtori kishte hyrë në Itali për sezonin bujqësor, kishte marrë lejen sezonale dhe, para skadimit të saj, kishte paraqitur kërkesën për konvertim. Prefektura kishte lëshuar një njoftim paraprak ku përmendeshin parregullsi të supozuara të punëdhënësit. Punëtori ishte përgjigjur plotësisht, duke paraqitur sqarime dhe dokumente. Megjithatë, Prefektura e përfundoi procedurën duke deklaruar se nuk ishte paraqitur asnjë vërejtje. Ky është gabimi që çoi në anulimin e vendimit. Në një procedurë konvertimi, e drejta për pjesëmarrje nuk është formalitet: ajo është një garanci ligjore. Neni 10-bis i Ligjit 241 të vitit 1990 i detyron autoritetet të shqyrtojnë vërejtjet e personit të interesuar dhe të motivojnë vendimin përfundimtar edhe mbi bazën e atyre vërejtjeve. Kur zyra mohon ekzistencën e dokumenteve që në fakt janë paraqitur në mënyrë të rregullt, motivimi bazohet mbi një premisë të rreme, dhe vendimi i tëri bëhet i paligjshëm. Gjykata Administrative e ka theksuar qartë këtë: shpërfillja e vërejtjeve të punëtorit përbën një shkelje procedurale aq serioze sa çon në pavlefshmërinë e refuzimit. Ky vendim nënvizon një pikë thelbësore: korrektësia procedurale ndikon drejtpërdrejt në jetën dhe të ardhmen e punëtorit të huaj. Nëse vërejtjet shpërfillen, punëtori humbet mundësinë për të paraqitur elemente vendimtare dhe konvertimi mund të refuzohet padrejtësisht. Kontrolli gjyqësor ndërhyn pikërisht për të rivendosur ekuilibrin dhe për të riafirmuar se procedura administrative nuk mund të zbrazet nga përmbajtja e saj. Me këtë përfundojmë episodin e sotëm. Faleminderit që na dëgjuat. Mirupafshim.

https://ift.tt/ho9AP4d

New on TikTok: Titulli i episodit: Konvertimi i lejes së punës sezonale: pse skadimi i lejes nuk mund ta bllokojë punëtorin e huaj Podcast – Versioni në shqip Mirëmëngjes dhe mirëseerdhët në një episod të ri të Së Drejtës së Imigracionit. Sot trajtojmë një çështje thelbësore që vazhdon të shkaktojë gabime administrative dhe procese gjyqësore të panevojshme: konvertimin e lejes së qëndrimit për punë sezonale në leje për punë të varur, dhe sidomos nëse skadimi i lejes sezonale mund ta bëjë të papranueshme kërkesën për konvertim. Pika e nisjes është një vendim i Gjykatës Administrative Rajonale të Ligurias, i publikuar më shtatë korrik dy mijë e njëzet e pesë. Rasti është i thjeshtë: një punëtor i huaj, mbajtës i një leje sezonale, paraqet kërkesën për konvertim pasi leja ka skaduar. Prefektura e refuzon kërkesën duke pretenduar se konvertimi është i mundur vetëm nëse leja është ende e vlefshme. Refuzimi jepet fillimisht pa shqyrtuar vërejtjet e punëtorit, dhe pastaj përsëritet pothuajse mekanikisht me të njëjtën arsyetim. Gjykata e rrëzon plotësisht këtë qëndrim, duke iu referuar qartë praktikës gjyqësore të konsoliduar. Në vendim thuhet se “nuk ka asnjë tregues ligjor nga i cili mund të nxirret se, për konvertimin e lejes së qëndrimit, kërkohet paraqitja e një leje të vlefshme në momentin e kërkesës” . Ky është një pasazh vendimtar, sepse sqaron një praktikë administrative pa asnjë bazë ligjore. Teksti Unik i Imigracionit nuk kërkon që leja sezonale të jetë e vlefshme në kohën e paraqitjes së kërkesës për konvertim. Nuk e kërkon legjislacioni sekondar. Nuk e kërkon asnjë qarkore. Kur një kusht nuk është parashikuar nga ligji, futja e tij nga administrata përbën kufizim të pajustifikuar që prek drejtpërdrejt rrugëtimin profesional të punëtorit. Rasti i Gjënovës tregon qartë se çfarë ndikimi kanë këto devijime. Edhe pas dy masave të përkohshme të gjykatës, Prefektura mbeti e palëvizshme dhe refuzoi të rishqyrtonte kërkesën pa u mbështetur te skadimi i lejes. Por gjykata është e prerë: kur administrata ta rihapë çështjen, ajo duhet të vlerësojë kërkesën në themel, të verifikojë plotësimin e kushteve materiale për punën e varur dhe të garantojë pjesëmarrjen procedurale të punëtorit. Gjykata vëren gjithashtu se Prefektura nuk ka shqyrtuar vërejtjet e punëtorit, duke i hedhur poshtë si “të papranueshme” pa dhënë asnjë argumentim real. Ky është një tjetër cenim procedural që i shtohet keqinterpretimit të kuadrit ligjor. Megjithatë, çështja thelbësore është vetëm një dhe duhet thënë hapur, sepse shpesh neglizhohet: skadimi i lejes sezonale nuk e bllokon dhe nuk mund ta bllokojë konvertimin. Qëllimi i konvertimit është të sigurojë vazhdimësinë e punës së rregullt dhe t’u mundësojë punëtorëve sezonalë stabilizimin e marrëdhënieve të punës tashmë të filluara. Lidhja e këtij procesi me një kusht formal që ligji nuk e parashikon do të çonte në rezultate të paarsyeshme, duke dëmtuar si punëtorin, ashtu edhe punëdhënësin që ka planifikuar punësimin. Vendimi i Gjykatës Administrative Rajonale të Ligurias jep një udhëzim thelbësor: administrata duhet të vlerësojë kërkesat e konvertimit në mënyrë thelbësore, pa u ndalur te data e skadimit. Nëse ekziston një ofertë pune e vlefshme dhe plotësohen kushtet e tjera, kërkesa duhet të shqyrtohet edhe nëse leja sezonale ka skaduar. Ky është një mesazh i rëndësishëm për të gjithë. Për punëtorët, sepse u garanton se rrugët e tyre të integrimit profesional nuk mund të ndërpriten për një kusht të paqenë. Për Prefekturat, sepse i detyron të harmonizojnë praktikat me ligjin dhe me jurisprudencën e qëndrueshme. Për juristët dhe profesionistët, sepse konfirmon një linjë interpretimi tashmë të konsoliduar në nivel kombëtar. Faleminderit që na dëgjuat. Do të vazhdojmë të ndjekim vendimet që lidhen me konvertimet, marrëdhëniet e punës dhe stabilitetin e qëndrimit, sepse pikërisht në këto fusha përcaktohet funksionimi real i politikave të imigracionit.

https://ift.tt/8OpHI3s

New on TikTok: تصريح الإقامة للعمل الموسمي: عندما يُرفَض طلب التحويل لأن الإدارة تجاهلت ملاحظات العامل صباح الخير وأهلاً بك في حلقة جديدة من بودكاست قانون الهجرة. اليوم نتناول مسألة تتكرر كثيراً وتؤثر بشكل مباشر على استقرار أوضاع العديد من العمال الأجانب، وهي تحويل تصريح الإقامة للعمل الموسمي إلى تصريح إقامة للعمل التابع. هذا التحويل خطوة أساسية، إذ يتوقف عليها استمرار الإقامة في إيطاليا واستقرار المسار المهني للعامل. القضية التي ننطلق منها عالجها المحكمة الإدارية الإقليمية في كالابريا – فرع ريدجو كالابريا، في حكم صادر بتاريخ 24 نوفمبر 2025، في الإجراء المسجل بالرقم 3 لسنة 2025. وقد أبطلت المحكمة قرار الرفض لأن المحافظة تجاهلت الملاحظات التي قدّمها العامل ردًّا على الإخطار بالرفض، رغم أنّ تلك الملاحظات كانت قد وصلت فعلاً وتم ضمّها إلى ملف الدعوى الإداري . وتتلخص الوقائع في أن العامل دخل إلى إيطاليا للعمل في الموسم الزراعي، وحصل على تصريح إقامة للعمل الموسمي، ثم تقدّم بطلب تحويل التصريح قبل انتهاء صلاحيته. أصدرت المحافظة إخطاراً تمهيدياً بالرفض استناداً إلى مخالفات منسوبة إلى صاحب العمل. وقد ردّ العامل بتقديم توضيحات ومستندات كاملة. ومع ذلك، أنهت المحافظة الإجراءات بقولها إنه لم يتم تقديم أي ملاحظات. وهذا الخطأ هو الذي أدّى إلى إلغاء القرار. في إجراءات التحويل، لا تُعدّ حقوق المشاركة مجرد إجراء شكلي، بل هي ضمانة قانونية أساسية. فالمادة 10-مكرّر من القانون رقم 241 لسنة 1990 تُلزم الإدارة بدراسة ملاحظات المعني بالأمر وبتسبيب القرار النهائي استناداً إليها. وعندما تنكر الإدارة وجود مستندات تم تقديمها بالفعل، فإن تسبيب القرار يقوم على أساس غير صحيح، مما يجعل القرار برمّته غير مشروع. وقد أكدت المحكمة هذا المبدأ بشكل واضح: تجاهل ملاحظات العامل يشكّل عيباً إجرائياً جسيماً يؤدي إلى بطلان قرار الرفض. وتؤكد هذه القضية على نقطة جوهرية: سلامة الإجراءات تؤثر مباشرة على حياة العامل الأجنبي ومستقبله. فإذا تم تجاهل الملاحظات، يفقد العامل فرصة تقديم عناصر قد تكون حاسمة، وقد يُرفض التحويل دون وجه حق. وتأتي الرقابة القضائية لتعيد التوازن وتؤكد أن الإجراءات الإدارية لا يجوز أن تُفرَّغ من مضمونها. وبهذا نصل إلى ختام حلقة اليوم. شكراً لحسن المتابعة. وإلى اللقاء.

https://ift.tt/Age9nMU

New on TikTok: Título del episodio: La conversión del permiso de trabajo estacional: por qué la caducidad del título no puede bloquear al trabajador extranjero Podcast – Versión en español Buenos días y bienvenidos a un nuevo episodio de Derecho de la Inmigración. Hoy analizamos un punto crucial que sigue generando errores administrativos y litigios innecesarios: la conversión del permiso de residencia por trabajo estacional en un permiso por trabajo subordinado, y en particular si la caducidad del permiso estacional puede hacer improcedente la solicitud de conversión. El punto de partida es una sentencia del Tribunal Administrativo Regional de Liguria, publicada el siete de julio de dos mil veinticinco. El caso es sencillo: un trabajador extranjero, titular de un permiso estacional, presenta la solicitud de conversión después de que el título haya caducado. La Prefectura rechaza la solicitud alegando que la conversión solo sería posible si el permiso estuviera todavía vigente. El rechazo se dicta una primera vez sin considerar las observaciones del trabajador y luego se repite, casi mecánicamente, con la misma motivación: la validez del permiso sería un requisito indispensable. El Tribunal desmonta por completo esta postura, recordando expresamente la jurisprudencia consolidada. En la sentencia se afirma que “no existe ninguna indicación legislativa de la cual pueda deducirse que, para la conversión del permiso de residencia, sea necesaria la presentación de un título de residencia en curso de validez” . Este es un pasaje decisivo, porque aclara una práctica administrativa que carece totalmente de base legal. El Texto Único de Inmigración no exige que el permiso estacional esté vigente para poder solicitar la conversión. Tampoco lo exige la normativa secundaria. Tampoco lo exige ninguna circular ministerial. Cuando no existe una norma que imponga tal condición, añadirla administrativamente supone introducir una limitación injustificada que afecta directamente al itinerario laboral del trabajador. El caso de Génova muestra claramente el impacto de estas desviaciones. Incluso después de dos autos cautelares del Tribunal, la Prefectura permaneció inactiva y se negó a reexaminar la solicitud sin basarse en la caducidad del permiso. Pero el Tribunal es claro: cuando la administración reevalúe el expediente, deberá analizar el fondo de la solicitud de conversión, verificar si se cumplen los requisitos materiales para el trabajo subordinado y permitir la participación del interesado en el procedimiento. El Tribunal también observa que la Prefectura no examinó las observaciones procedimentales del trabajador, rechazándolas como “no aceptables” sin una motivación real. Este defecto se suma al error interpretativo sobre el marco jurídico aplicable. La clave, sin embargo, es una sola y debe afirmarse con claridad, porque a menudo se ignora: la caducidad del permiso estacional no bloquea y no puede bloquear la conversión. La conversión es un instrumento que garantiza la continuidad laboral y permite a los trabajadores estacionales estabilizar relaciones laborales ya iniciadas. Condicionar este proceso a un requisito formal que la ley no prevé produciría resultados irrazonables, perjudicando tanto al trabajador como al empleador que ya ha planificado la contratación. La sentencia del Tribunal Administrativo Regional de Liguria ofrece por tanto una orientación esencial: la administración debe evaluar las solicitudes de conversión en su fondo, sin detenerse ante la caducidad del permiso. Si existe una oferta de trabajo válida y se cumplen los demás requisitos, la solicitud debe ser instruida y valorada aunque el permiso estacional ya haya expirado. Este mensaje es importante para todos. Para los trabajadores, porque reafirma que sus itinerarios de integración laboral no pueden interrumpirse sobre la base de un requisito inexistente. Para las Prefecturas, porque obliga a adecuar las prácticas al marco legal y a la jurisprudencia constante. Para

https://ift.tt/vFQAly8

New on TikTok: Permiso de residencia por trabajo estacional: cuando la conversión es denegada porque la Administración ignora las observaciones del trabajador Buenos días y bienvenido a un nuevo episodio del pódcast Derecho de la Inmigración. Hoy analizamos un problema frecuente y a menudo decisivo: la conversión del permiso de residencia por trabajo estacional en un permiso de residencia por trabajo subordinado. Se trata de un paso fundamental para muchos trabajadores extranjeros, porque de una correcta tramitación dependen la estabilidad de su estancia y la continuidad de su trayectoria laboral en Italia. El caso del que partimos fue resuelto por el Tribunal Administrativo Regional de Calabria, Sección de Reggio Calabria, en una sentencia publicada el 24 de noviembre de 2025, relativa al procedimiento inscrito con número 3 de 2025. El tribunal anuló la denegación de la conversión porque la Prefectura había ignorado las observaciones presentadas por el trabajador en respuesta al preaviso de rechazo, a pesar de que dichas observaciones habían sido debidamente recibidas e incorporadas al expediente administrativo . Los hechos son sencillos. El trabajador había llegado a Italia para la temporada agrícola, había obtenido un permiso de trabajo estacional y, antes de su caducidad, había solicitado la conversión. La Prefectura emitió un preaviso señalando posibles motivos de rechazo relacionados con supuestas irregularidades del empleador. El trabajador respondió de forma completa, aportando explicaciones y documentación. Sin embargo, la Prefectura concluyó el procedimiento afirmando que no se había presentado ninguna observación. Ese es el error fundamental que llevó a la anulación. En un procedimiento de conversión, los derechos de participación no son una formalidad: son una garantía legal. El artículo 10-bis de la Ley 241 de 1990 exige que la Administración examine las observaciones del interesado y que motive la decisión final teniendo en cuenta ese contenido. Si la oficina niega la existencia de documentos que sí fueron presentados correctamente, la motivación se fundamenta en un presupuesto falso y toda la decisión deviene ilegítima. El Tribunal Administrativo lo señala de forma inequívoca: la falta de valoración de las observaciones del trabajador constituye un defecto procedimental lo suficientemente grave como para invalidar la denegación. Esta sentencia subraya un punto esencial: la corrección del procedimiento influye directamente en la vida y el futuro del trabajador extranjero. Si las observaciones se ignoran, la persona queda privada de la posibilidad de aportar elementos determinantes y la conversión puede ser injustamente rechazada. La revisión judicial interviene precisamente para restablecer el equilibrio y reafirmar que el procedimiento administrativo no puede vaciarse de contenido. Con esto concluimos el episodio de hoy. Gracias por escucharnos. Hasta la próxima.

https://ift.tt/WZf5GUB

New on TikTok: Episode Title: Converting Seasonal Work Permits: Why Expired Permits Cannot Block Foreign Workers Podcast – English Version Good morning and welcome to a new episode of Immigration Law. Today we focus on a crucial issue that continues to generate administrative errors and unnecessary litigation: the conversion of a seasonal work permit into a permit for subordinate employment, and in particular whether the expiration of the seasonal permit can render the conversion request inadmissible. The starting point is a decision of the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Liguria, published on July seventh, two thousand twenty-five. The case is straightforward: a foreign worker holding a seasonal permit submits a conversion request after the permit has expired. The Prefecture rejects the request, arguing that conversion is possible only if the seasonal permit is still valid. The rejection is issued once without considering the worker’s written observations, then repeated—almost mechanically—with the same reasoning: the validity of the permit would be an essential prerequisite. The Tribunal completely dismantles this position, expressly recalling established case-law. The judgment states that “there is no legislative provision from which it is possible to infer that, for the purposes of converting the residence permit, the presentation of a valid residence permit is required” . This is a decisive passage, because it clarifies an administrative practice that has no legal basis. The Italian Immigration Act does not require the seasonal permit to be valid at the time of conversion. The provision on seasonal permits does not require it. Secondary legislation does not require it. No ministerial circular requires it. When no legal provision imposes such a condition, introducing it administratively results in an unlawful restriction that directly affects the worker’s employment path. The case in Genoa shows the concrete impact of these distortions. Even after two interim orders from the Tribunal, the Prefecture remained inactive and refused to reassess the application without relying on the expiration of the permit. But the Tribunal is clear: when the administration re-examines the case, it must evaluate the merits of the conversion request, verify whether the substantive requirements for subordinate employment are met, and allow the worker to participate in the procedure. The court also notes that the Prefecture failed to examine the worker’s procedural observations, dismissing them as “not acceptable” without any meaningful reasoning. This procedural defect compounds the misunderstanding of the applicable legal framework. Ultimately, however, the key point is simple and must be stated clearly, because it is often misunderstood: the expiration of the seasonal permit does not— and cannot—block the conversion procedure. The purpose of conversion is to ensure continuity in lawful employment and allow seasonal workers to stabilise ongoing employment relationships. Tying conversion to a formal requirement that the law does not impose would produce unreasonable consequences, penalising both the worker and the employer who has already planned the hire. The decision of the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Liguria therefore provides essential guidance: the administration must evaluate conversion applications on their merits, without relying on the expiration of the seasonal permit. If there is a valid job offer and the other requirements are met, the conversion request must be duly examined—even if the seasonal permit has already expired. This message matters for everyone. For workers, because it reaffirms that their paths toward integration through work cannot be interrupted on the basis of a non-existent requirement. For Prefectures, because it requires alignment with the legal framework and with consistent national case-law. For legal practitioners, because it confirms an interpretative line that has become stable across jurisdictions

https://ift.tt/Gxf2hwj

New on TikTok: عنوان الحلقة: تحويل تصريح العمل الموسمي: لماذا لا يمكن لانتهاء صلاحية التصريح أن يعرقل العامل الأجنبي البودكاست – النسخة العربية صباح الخير، وأهلًا بكم في حلقة جديدة من قانون الهجرة. نتناول اليوم مسألة أساسية لا تزال تثير أخطاءً إدارية ونزاعات قضائية غير ضرورية: تحويل تصريح الإقامة للعمل الموسمي إلى تصريح للعمل التابع، وبالأخص ما إذا كان انتهاء صلاحية التصريح الموسمي يمكن أن يجعل طلب التحويل غير مقبول. تنطلق هذه الحلقة من حكم صادر عن المحكمة الإدارية الإقليمية في ليغوريا، نُشر في السابع من يوليو عام ألفين وخمسة وعشرين. تتلخّص الوقائع في أن عاملًا أجنبيًا يحمل تصريحًا موسميًا قدّم طلب التحويل بعد انتهاء صلاحية التصريح. فرفضت المحافظة الطلب بحجّة أنّ التحويل لا يمكن أن يتم إلا إذا كان التصريح ما يزال ساريًا. وقد صدر الرفض أولًا من دون النظر في ملاحظات العامل، ثم أُعيد تأكيده بشكل شبه آلي بالاستناد إلى الحجة نفسها. المحكمة رفضت هذا الموقف تمامًا، واستندت إلى اجتهاد قضائي ثابت. وجاء في الحكم ما يلي: «لا يوجد أي نص تشريعي يمكن الاستدلال منه على ضرورة أن يكون تصريح الإقامة ساري المفعول لأغراض تحويله» . هذا المقطع حاسم، لأنه يوضح أن الممارسة الإدارية القائمة على اشتراط صلاحية التصريح لا أساس لها في القانون. فالقانون الإيطالي الخاص بالهجرة لا يشترط أن يكون تصريح العمل الموسمي ساريًا عند تقديم طلب التحويل، ولا تتضمن اللوائح التنفيذية أو المناشير الوزارية أي شرط من هذا النوع. وإضافة الإدارة لشرط غير موجود في القانون يؤدي إلى تقييد غير مشروع ينعكس مباشرة على المسار المهني للعامل الأجنبي. وتُظهر وقائع قضية جنوى أثر هذه الانحرافات بشكل واضح. فرغم صدور قرارين احترازيين من المحكمة، بقيت المحافظة في حالة جمود ورفضت إعادة النظر في الطلب من دون الأخذ في الاعتبار انتهاء صلاحية التصريح. لكن المحكمة أكدت أن الإدارة، عند إعادة فحص الطلب، ملزمة بدراسة الأساس الموضوعي للتحويل، والتحقق من توافر شروط العمل التابع، وتمكين العامل من المشاركة الفعلية في الإجراءات. كما لاحظت المحكمة أن المحافظة لم تتناول ملاحظات العامل الإجرائية، واكتفت برفضها باعتبارها «غير مقبولة» من دون إبداء أي تسبيب حقيقي. وهذا عيب إجرائي يضاف إلى سوء فهم الإطار القانوني. ومع ذلك، تبقى النقطة الجوهرية واحدة ويجب التأكيد عليها بوضوح لأنها كثيرًا ما تُهمل: انتهاء صلاحية التصريح الموسمي لا يعرقل ولا يمكن أن يعرقل إجراءات التحويل. فالغرض من التحويل هو ضمان استمرارية العمل المشروع، وتمكين العمال الموسميين من تثبيت علاقات العمل القائمة بالفعل. ربط هذا المسار بشرط شكلي غير منصوص عليه في القانون يؤدي إلى نتائج غير منطقية، ويُلحق الضرر بالعامل وبصاحب العمل الذي خطّط للتوظيف. وتقدّم المحكمة الإدارية في ليغوريا توجيهًا بالغ الأهمية: يجب على الإدارة تقييم طلبات التحويل على أساس موضوعي، من دون التوقف عند تاريخ انتهاء التصريح. فإذا كانت هناك فرصة عمل حقيقية، وكانت الشروط الأخرى مستوفاة، فإن الطلب يجب أن يُدرس بالتفصيل حتى لو كان التصريح الموسمي قد انتهت صلاحيته. هذه الرسالة مهمة للجميع. للعاملين، لأنها تؤكد أن مسارات اندماجهم المهني لا يمكن وقفها بناءً على شرط غير موجود. وللإدارات العامة، لأنها تفرض عليها الالتزام بالقانون والاجتهاد القضائي. وللمحامين والمختصين، لأنها تؤكد اتجاهًا تأويليًا مستقرًا على المستوى الوطني. شكرًا لكم على الاستماع. سنواصل متابعة الاجتهادات القضائية المتعلقة بالتحويل، وعلاقات العمل، واستقرار الإقامة، لأن هذه الجوانب تشكل الجزء الأكثر واقعية وتأثيرًا في سياسات الهجرة.

https://ift.tt/pRsUti7

New on TikTok: Title of the episode “Converting the Special Protection Permit: The Sicily Regional Administrative Court Clarifies When the Right Exists” Podcast Episode – English Version Good morning, this is lawyer Fabio Loscerbo, and you are listening to a new episode of the Immigration Law Podcast. Today we examine an important decision published on the twenty-first of November two thousand twenty-five by the Regional Administrative Court of Sicily, Third Section. The case, registered under general docket number eight hundred fifty-one of two thousand twenty-five, concerns the refusal by the Police Headquarters of Palermo to convert a special protection residence permit into a residence permit for subordinate employment. The case mirrors a situation that many foreign nationals are facing in recent months. The applicant had obtained special protection following a judicial decree issued on the eighth of May two thousand twenty-three by the Court of Palermo, which recognised the relevance of his path of social and work integration. The Court stated that removing him from Italian territory would unjustifiably interfere with his private and family life. Based on that judicial order, the Police Headquarters issued a two-year residence permit. Later, in August two thousand twenty-four, the foreign national signed an open-ended employment contract as a domestic worker. In October of the same year, he applied to convert his special protection permit into a work permit. The Police Headquarters denied the request, arguing that the special protection had been granted within proceedings related to international protection—rather than in connection with an application for special protection submitted before the fifth of May two thousand twenty-three—and therefore the transitional regime under Article Seven of Decree-Law Twenty of two thousand twenty-three would not apply. It is precisely at this point that the judgment of the Sicily Regional Administrative Court provides a clarification of significant practical impact. The Court states that the Police Headquarters applied an excessively restrictive interpretation of the transitional regime. The central point is this: the intertemporal rules introduced by Article Seven of Decree-Law Twenty of two thousand twenty-three do not distinguish between the procedures through which special protection was granted. The only relevant requirement is that the applicant’s request for special protection was submitted before the fifth of May two thousand twenty-three and that the administration’s subsequent refusal was declared unlawful by a judicial authority. The Court expressly refers to the opinion of the State Legal Service, which states that conversion is permitted for all special protection permits recognised by a court, regardless of whether they originated under Article Nineteen of the Consolidated Immigration Act or Article Thirty-Two, paragraph three, of Legislative Decree Twenty-Five of two thousand eight. In other words, there cannot be two types of special protection—one convertible and one not—because the statutory requirements are identical. The judgment also recalls a key passage from recent administrative case law, which states that “the law has established a single temporal threshold for the convertibility of the title, namely the date on which the special protection application was submitted, and no other conditions.” In practical terms, the Police Headquarters cannot add restrictions that the legislator did not impose. This approach, consistent with rulings of the Council of State and other regional administrative courts, leads the Sicilian bench to annul the refusal and recognise the applicant’s right to convert the permit, also confirming his admission to legal aid at public expense. From an operational standpoint, this decision has considerable weight. It consolidates a clear and now stable principle: anyone who submitted their special protection request before the fifth of May two thou

https://ift.tt/436or9b

New on TikTok:

https://ift.tt/zl2W3km https://ift.tt/5MJrbpn

New on TikTok: عنوان الحلقة: نظام دبلن والالتزامات المعلوماتية: محكمة روما تُلغي قرار النقل إلى سلوفينيا (رقم السجل العام 37474 لعام 2025) صباح الخير، أنا المحامي فابيو لوسيربو، وهذه حلقة جديدة من بودكاست “قانون الهجرة”. سأتناول اليوم قرارًا صادرًا عن محكمة روما، الدائرة المختصة بحقوق الإنسان والهجرة، بتاريخ الثامن عشر من نوفمبر عام ألفين وخمسة وعشرين، والمتعلق بالإجراءات المُقيّدة تحت رقم السجل العام 37474 لسنة 2025. يتعلق القرار بالطعن ضد الإجراء الصادر عن وحدة دبلن في وزارة الداخلية، والذي قضى بنقل طالب الحماية إلى سلوفينيا. وقد قبلت المحكمة الطعن بعدما تبيّن لها عدم احترام الالتزامات المعلوماتية المنصوص عليها في المادتين الرابعة والخامسة من اللائحة الأوروبية رقم 604 لعام 2013. النقطة الجوهرية في القضية هي المقابلة الشخصية. فقد أكدت محكمة العدل الأوروبية، في حكمها الصادر في الثلاثين من نوفمبر عام ألفين وثلاثة وعشرين، أنّ المقابلة تمثل ضمانة أساسية: يجب إجراؤها قبل اتخاذ قرار النقل، بلغة يفهمها طالب الحماية، وفي ظروف تضمن السرية، كما يجب أن تتيح له عرض العناصر الشخصية ذات الصلة. إضافة إلى ذلك، يتعيّن على الدولة إعداد ملخص مكتوب يتضمن على الأقل المعلومات الرئيسية التي قدّمها طالب الحماية خلال المقابلة. وفي القضية التي نظرت فيها محكمة روما، لم يكن لهذا الملخص أي وجود. فالاستمارة التي قدّمتها الإدارة لم تتضمن سوى البيانات الشخصية للمعنيّ وعنوان إقامته، دون أي إشارة إلى مضمون المقابلة أو الأسئلة المطروحة أو الإجابات المقدمة. وفي مثل هذه الحالة، تُعتبر المقابلة غير مستوفية للشروط، ويترتّب على ذلك إلغاء قرار النقل تلقائيًا. وقد أكدت ذلك كل من محكمة العدل الأوروبية وأحدث أحكام محكمة النقض الإيطالية. كما رأت المحكمة أنّه لا يمكن معالجة هذا الخلل عبر جلسة استماع قضائية، لأن ذلك من شأنه الإضرار بالطابع السريع والإجرائي لنظام دبلن. وبناءً على ذلك، خلصت المحكمة إلى أنّ إيطاليا هي الجهة المختصة بالنظر في طلب الحماية الدولية. نلتقي في الحلقة القادمة من بودكاست “قانون الهجرة”.

https://ift.tt/6JbujwU عنوان الحلقة: نظام دبلن والالتزامات المعلوماتية: محكمة روما تُلغي قرار النقل إلى سلوفينيا (رقم السجل العام 37474 لعام 2025) صباح الخير، أنا المحامي فابيو لوسيربو، وهذه حلقة جديدة من بودكاست “قانون الهجرة”. سأتناول اليوم قرارًا صادرًا عن محكمة روما، الدائرة المختصة بحقوق الإنسان والهجرة، بتاريخ الثامن عشر من نوفمبر عام ألفين وخمسة وعشرين، والمتعلق بالإجراءات المُقيّدة تحت رقم السجل العام 37474 لسنة 2025. يتعلق القرار بالطعن ضد الإجراء الصادر عن وحدة دبلن في وزارة الداخلية، والذي قضى بنقل طالب الحماية إلى سلوفينيا. وقد قبلت المحكمة الطعن بعدما تبيّن لها عدم احترام الالتزامات المعلوماتية المنصوص عليها في المادتين الرابعة والخامسة من اللائحة الأوروبية رقم 604 لعام 2013. النقطة الجوهرية في القضية هي المقابلة الشخصية. فقد أكدت محكمة العدل الأوروبية، في حكمها الصادر في الثلاثين من نوفمبر عام ألفين وثلاثة وعشرين، أنّ المقابلة تمثل ضمانة أساسية: يجب إجراؤها قبل اتخاذ قرار النقل، بلغة يفهمها طالب الحماية، وفي ظروف تضمن السرية، كما يجب أن تتيح له عرض العناصر الشخصية ذات الصلة. إضافة إلى ذلك، يتعيّن على الدولة إعداد ملخص مكتوب يتضمن على الأقل المعلومات الرئيسية التي قدّمها طالب الحماية خلال المقابلة. وفي القضية التي نظرت فيها محكمة روما، لم يكن لهذا الملخص أي وجود. فالاستمارة التي قدّمتها الإدارة لم تتضمن سوى البيانات الشخصية للمعنيّ وعنوان إقامته، دون أي إشارة إلى مضمون المقابلة أو الأسئلة المطروحة أو الإجابات المقدمة. وفي مثل هذه الحالة، تُعتبر المقابلة غير مستوفية للشروط، ويترتّب على ذلك إلغاء قرار النقل تلقائيًا. وقد أكدت ذلك كل من محكمة العدل الأوروبية وأحدث أحكام محكمة النقض الإيطالية. كما رأت المحكمة أنّه لا يمكن معالجة هذا الخلل عبر جلسة استماع قضائية، لأن ذلك من شأنه الإضرار بالطابع السريع والإجرائي لنظام دبلن. وبناءً على ذلك، خلصت المحكمة إلى أنّ إيطاليا هي الجهة المختصة بالنظر في طلب الحماية الدولية. نلتقي في الحلقة القادمة من بودكاست “قانون الهجرة”. https://ift.tt/5nqjOA6

New on TikTok: Titolo dell’episodio: Trasferimenti Dublino e obblighi informativi: il Tribunale di Roma annulla il trasferimento in Slovenia (Ruolo Generale 37474 del 2025) Buongiorno, sono l’avvocato Fabio Loscerbo e questo è un nuovo episodio del podcast “Diritto dell’Immigrazione”. Oggi analizzo un provvedimento del Tribunale di Roma, Sezione Diritti della Persona e Immigrazione, depositato il diciotto novembre duemila venticinque, relativo al procedimento iscritto al Ruolo Generale 37474 dell’anno 2025. Il decreto riguarda l’impugnazione della decisione dell’Unità Dublino del Ministero dell’Interno che aveva disposto il trasferimento del richiedente in Slovenia. Il Tribunale ha accolto il ricorso, rilevando il mancato rispetto degli obblighi informativi previsti dagli articoli quattro e cinque del Regolamento Dublino numero seicentoquattro del duemila tredici. Il punto centrale è il colloquio personale. La Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea, con la sentenza del trenta novembre duemila ventitre, ha stabilito che il colloquio è una garanzia essenziale: deve essere svolto prima della decisione, deve avvenire in una lingua comprensibile, in condizioni di riservatezza, e deve consentire al richiedente di esporre elementi individuali rilevanti. Inoltre, lo Stato deve redigere una sintesi scritta contenente almeno le principali informazioni fornite nel corso dell’incontro. Nel procedimento in esame, questa sintesi non risultava esistere. Il modulo messo agli atti riportava soltanto le generalità del richiedente e il suo domicilio, senza alcun riferimento al contenuto del colloquio. In queste condizioni il colloquio deve considerarsi non validamente svolto, con la conseguenza automatica dell’annullamento della decisione di trasferimento. Lo ha ribadito la giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia e, più di recente, quella della Corte di Cassazione. Il Tribunale ha inoltre ritenuto che non fosse possibile sanare la violazione mediante un’audizione davanti al giudice, poiché ciò avrebbe compromesso la celerità dell’intero sottoprocedimento Dublino. La conseguenza è che l’Italia deve essere considerata competente a valutare la domanda di protezione internazionale. Ci sentiamo nel prossimo episodio del podcast “Diritto dell’Immigrazione”.

https://ift.tt/2UxbeWo Titolo dell’episodio: Trasferimenti Dublino e obblighi informativi: il Tribunale di Roma annulla il trasferimento in Slovenia (Ruolo Generale 37474 del 2025) Buongiorno, sono l’avvocato Fabio Loscerbo e questo è un nuovo episodio del podcast “Diritto dell’Immigrazione”. Oggi analizzo un provvedimento del Tribunale di Roma, Sezione Diritti della Persona e Immigrazione, depositato il diciotto novembre duemila venticinque, relativo al procedimento iscritto al Ruolo Generale 37474 dell’anno 2025. Il decreto riguarda l’impugnazione della decisione dell’Unità Dublino del Ministero dell’Interno che aveva disposto il trasferimento del richiedente in Slovenia. Il Tribunale ha accolto il ricorso, rilevando il mancato rispetto degli obblighi informativi previsti dagli articoli quattro e cinque del Regolamento Dublino numero seicentoquattro del duemila tredici. Il punto centrale è il colloquio personale. La Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea, con la sentenza del trenta novembre duemila ventitre, ha stabilito che il colloquio è una garanzia essenziale: deve essere svolto prima della decisione, deve avvenire in una lingua comprensibile, in condizioni di riservatezza, e deve consentire al richiedente di esporre elementi individuali rilevanti. Inoltre, lo Stato deve redigere una sintesi scritta contenente almeno le principali informazioni fornite nel corso dell’incontro. Nel procedimento in esame, questa sintesi non risultava esistere. Il modulo messo agli atti riportava soltanto le generalità del richiedente e il suo domicilio, senza alcun riferimento al contenuto del colloquio. In queste condizioni il colloquio deve considerarsi non validamente svolto, con la conseguenza automatica dell’annullamento della decisione di trasferimento. Lo ha ribadito la giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia e, più di recente, quella della Corte di Cassazione. Il Tribunale ha inoltre ritenuto che non fosse possibile sanare la violazione mediante un’audizione davanti al giudice, poiché ciò avrebbe compromesso la celerità dell’intero sottoprocedimento Dublino. La conseguenza è che l’Italia deve essere considerata competente a valutare la domanda di protezione internazionale. Ci sentiamo nel prossimo episodio del podcast “Diritto dell’Immigrazione”. https://ift.tt/8Wmnk5c

New on TikTok: Title of the episode: Dublin transfers and information obligations: the Rome Court annuls the transfer to Slovenia (General Docket Number 37474 of 2025) Good morning, I am lawyer Fabio Loscerbo and this is a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. Today I examine a decision of the Court of Rome, Section for the Rights of the Person and Immigration, issued on the eighteenth of November two thousand twenty-five, in the proceeding entered under General Docket Number 37474 of the year 2025. The decree concerns the challenge brought against the decision of the Dublin Unit of the Ministry of the Interior, which had ordered the transfer of the applicant to Slovenia. The Court upheld the appeal, noting a failure to comply with the information obligations laid down in Articles four and five of Regulation (EU) number six hundred and four of two thousand thirteen. The central issue is the personal interview. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of the thirtieth of November two thousand twenty-three, clarified that the interview is an essential safeguard: it must take place before the transfer decision, it must be conducted in a language that the applicant understands, in conditions guaranteeing confidentiality, and it must allow the applicant to present any relevant personal circumstances. Moreover, the State must draft a written summary containing at least the main information provided during the interview. In the case examined by the Court of Rome, this summary did not exist. The form produced by the administration contained only the applicant’s personal details and domicile, with no indication whatsoever of the questions asked, the answers provided, or any personal elements disclosed during the meeting. In such circumstances, the interview must be considered not validly conducted, and this automatically entails the annulment of the transfer decision. This outcome is confirmed both by the Court of Justice and by the recent case law of the Court of Cassation. The Court also found that it was not possible to remedy the violation through a judicial hearing, as this would have undermined the efficiency and speed required by the Dublin procedure. The consequence is that Italy must be considered competent to examine the application for international protection. See you in the next episode of the “Immigration Law” podcast.

https://ift.tt/tKrTENn Title of the episode: Dublin transfers and information obligations: the Rome Court annuls the transfer to Slovenia (General Docket Number 37474 of 2025) Good morning, I am lawyer Fabio Loscerbo and this is a new episode of the podcast “Immigration Law”. Today I examine a decision of the Court of Rome, Section for the Rights of the Person and Immigration, issued on the eighteenth of November two thousand twenty-five, in the proceeding entered under General Docket Number 37474 of the year 2025. The decree concerns the challenge brought against the decision of the Dublin Unit of the Ministry of the Interior, which had ordered the transfer of the applicant to Slovenia. The Court upheld the appeal, noting a failure to comply with the information obligations laid down in Articles four and five of Regulation (EU) number six hundred and four of two thousand thirteen. The central issue is the personal interview. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of the thirtieth of November two thousand twenty-three, clarified that the interview is an essential safeguard: it must take place before the transfer decision, it must be conducted in a language that the applicant understands, in conditions guaranteeing confidentiality, and it must allow the applicant to present any relevant personal circumstances. Moreover, the State must draft a written summary containing at least the main information provided during the interview. In the case examined by the Court of Rome, this summary did not exist. The form produced by the administration contained only the applicant’s personal details and domicile, with no indication whatsoever of the questions asked, the answers provided, or any personal elements disclosed during the meeting. In such circumstances, the interview must be considered not validly conducted, and this automatically entails the annulment of the transfer decision. This outcome is confirmed both by the Court of Justice and by the recent case law of the Court of Cassation. The Court also found that it was not possible to remedy the violation through a judicial hearing, as this would have undermined the efficiency and speed required by the Dublin procedure. The consequence is that Italy must be considered competent to examine the application for international protection. See you in the next episode of the “Immigration Law” podcast. https://ift.tt/9mGjMJT

New on TikTok: Title of the episode: Family reunification for parents over sixty-five and the presence of other children in the country of origin: the Rome Tribunal clarifies the requirements Podcast – Immigration Law Good morning, I am lawyer Fabio Loscerbo and this is a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. Today we analyse an important judgment concerning a key issue in family reunification procedures: the situation of parents over sixty-five years of age and the role of the other children who remain in the country of origin. The reference is the decision of the Tribunal of Rome, Section for the Rights of the Person and Immigration, filed on 20 November 2025, in the proceedings registered under number 27916 of 2025. The case concerned a Moroccan citizen, holder of a long-term EU residence permit, who had obtained the clearance for family reunification from the Single Immigration Desk of the Prefecture of Rovigo in order to bring both parents to Italy. Nevertheless, the Italian Embassy in Morocco refused the entry visa to his mother, arguing that the statutory requirements set out in Article 29 of the Consolidated Immigration Act had not been demonstrated. The Tribunal confirmed the legitimacy of the refusal, clarifying a point that often generates uncertainty: the distinction between the condition of a “dependent parent” and that of a “parent over sixty-five years of age”, which are alternative and not cumulative. For parents who have passed the age of sixty-five, the legislator does not assess the parent’s income, but rather the actual possibility that other children in the country of origin can provide assistance. In the case examined, the applicant’s mother had eight children in total, as shown by the family booklet filed in the proceedings. In such a situation, the law requires specific proof: the applicant must demonstrate that the other children do not reside in Morocco, or that—even if they do reside there—they are unable to assist the parent due to serious and documented health reasons. The family-dependence certificate produced by the applicant was not considered sufficient, because it only attests to financial support and does not address the issue of actual personal assistance. The statutory rule is not based on a purely economic approach: it considers the overall ability of the other children to care for the elderly parent. In the absence of the required evidence, the Tribunal rejected the application. Thank you for listening. This was a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. See you next time.

https://ift.tt/Uvjnbyq Title of the episode: Family reunification for parents over sixty-five and the presence of other children in the country of origin: the Rome Tribunal clarifies the requirements Podcast – Immigration Law Good morning, I am lawyer Fabio Loscerbo and this is a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. Today we analyse an important judgment concerning a key issue in family reunification procedures: the situation of parents over sixty-five years of age and the role of the other children who remain in the country of origin. The reference is the decision of the Tribunal of Rome, Section for the Rights of the Person and Immigration, filed on 20 November 2025, in the proceedings registered under number 27916 of 2025. The case concerned a Moroccan citizen, holder of a long-term EU residence permit, who had obtained the clearance for family reunification from the Single Immigration Desk of the Prefecture of Rovigo in order to bring both parents to Italy. Nevertheless, the Italian Embassy in Morocco refused the entry visa to his mother, arguing that the statutory requirements set out in Article 29 of the Consolidated Immigration Act had not been demonstrated. The Tribunal confirmed the legitimacy of the refusal, clarifying a point that often generates uncertainty: the distinction between the condition of a “dependent parent” and that of a “parent over sixty-five years of age”, which are alternative and not cumulative. For parents who have passed the age of sixty-five, the legislator does not assess the parent’s income, but rather the actual possibility that other children in the country of origin can provide assistance. In the case examined, the applicant’s mother had eight children in total, as shown by the family booklet filed in the proceedings. In such a situation, the law requires specific proof: the applicant must demonstrate that the other children do not reside in Morocco, or that—even if they do reside there—they are unable to assist the parent due to serious and documented health reasons. The family-dependence certificate produced by the applicant was not considered sufficient, because it only attests to financial support and does not address the issue of actual personal assistance. The statutory rule is not based on a purely economic approach: it considers the overall ability of the other children to care for the elderly parent. In the absence of the required evidence, the Tribunal rejected the application. Thank you for listening. This was a new episode of the Immigration Law podcast. See you next time. https://ift.tt/Q0L8ew3

New on TikTok: 🎙️ Podcast Title: When Integration Becomes Protection: The Bari Commission Recognizes Special Protection 🎧 Podcast Script (English version): Welcome to Immigration Law, the podcast hosted by Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Today, we’re talking about an important decision by the Territorial Commission of Bari, which granted special protection to a Moroccan citizen based on his strong and proven integration in Italy. The case started with an application for international protection, which was rejected because there were no grounds for persecution or serious harm in case of return. However, the Commission highlighted a crucial aspect: the applicant has been living and working in Italy for years, holds a rental contract, a stable job in the construction sector, maintains solid social relationships, and takes part in the local community’s life. The decision therefore emphasizes the principle of effective integration as a legally protected right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for private and family life. According to the Commission, deporting the applicant would have violated this right, as it would have broken a life path now firmly rooted in Italian society. This decision reaffirms a growing legal orientation: special protection is not a residual or secondary safeguard, but a legal instrument that upholds the very essence of human dignity—when a foreigner has built their home, their identity, and their future in Italy. In a system increasingly linking the right to stay to the concept of integration, this decision represents an important step toward a balanced and humane vision of immigration law, where social belonging becomes a legal right. I am Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Follow me on Spreaker, Amazon Music, and all my social channels to stay updated on cases, rulings, and news in immigration law. See you in the next episode of Immigration Law.

https://ift.tt/zcEnC6P 🎙️ Podcast Title: When Integration Becomes Protection: The Bari Commission Recognizes Special Protection 🎧 Podcast Script (English version): Welcome to Immigration Law, the podcast hosted by Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Today, we’re talking about an important decision by the Territorial Commission of Bari, which granted special protection to a Moroccan citizen based on his strong and proven integration in Italy. The case started with an application for international protection, which was rejected because there were no grounds for persecution or serious harm in case of return. However, the Commission highlighted a crucial aspect: the applicant has been living and working in Italy for years, holds a rental contract, a stable job in the construction sector, maintains solid social relationships, and takes part in the local community’s life. The decision therefore emphasizes the principle of effective integration as a legally protected right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for private and family life. According to the Commission, deporting the applicant would have violated this right, as it would have broken a life path now firmly rooted in Italian society. This decision reaffirms a growing legal orientation: special protection is not a residual or secondary safeguard, but a legal instrument that upholds the very essence of human dignity—when a foreigner has built their home, their identity, and their future in Italy. In a system increasingly linking the right to stay to the concept of integration, this decision represents an important step toward a balanced and humane vision of immigration law, where social belonging becomes a legal right. I am Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Follow me on Spreaker, Amazon Music, and all my social channels to stay updated on cases, rulings, and news in immigration law. See you in the next episode of Immigration Law.

New on TikTok: 🎙️ Título del pódcast: Cuando la integración se convierte en protección: la Comisión de Bari reconoce la protección especial 🎧 Texto del pódcast (en español): Bienvenidos a Derecho de Inmigración, el pódcast presentado por el abogado Fabio Loscerbo. Hoy hablaremos de una importante decisión de la Comisión Territorial de Bari, que concedió la protección especial a un ciudadano marroquí en base a su fuerte y comprobada integración en Italia. El caso comenzó con una solicitud de protección internacional, que fue rechazada al no existir motivos de persecución ni riesgo grave en caso de retorno. Sin embargo, la Comisión destacó un aspecto fundamental: el solicitante vive y trabaja en Italia desde hace años, tiene un contrato de alquiler, un empleo estable en el sector de la construcción, mantiene sólidas relaciones sociales y participa activamente en la vida comunitaria local. La decisión subraya el principio de integración efectiva como un derecho jurídicamente protegido conforme al artículo 8 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, que garantiza el respeto de la vida privada y familiar. Según la Comisión, deportar al solicitante habría constituido una violación de este derecho, ya que habría interrumpido un proyecto de vida profundamente arraigado en la sociedad italiana. Esta decisión confirma una orientación jurídica cada vez más reconocida: la protección especial no es una medida residual, sino un instrumento jurídico que protege la esencia misma de la dignidad humana, cuando una persona extranjera ha construido en Italia su hogar, su identidad y su futuro. En un sistema que vincula cada vez más el derecho a permanecer con el concepto de integración, esta decisión representa un paso importante hacia una visión humana y equilibrada del derecho de inmigración, donde la pertenencia social se convierte en un verdadero derecho. Soy el abogado Fabio Loscerbo. Sígueme en Spreaker, Amazon Music y en todas mis redes sociales para mantenerte al día sobre casos, sentencias y novedades en materia de derecho de inmigración. Hasta el próximo episodio de Derecho de Inmigración.

🎙️ Título del pódcast: Cuando la integración se convierte en protección: la Comisión de Bari reconoce la protección especial 🎧 Texto del pódcast (en español): Bienvenidos a Derecho de Inmigración, el pódcast presentado por el abogado Fabio Loscerbo. Hoy hablaremos de una importante decisión de la Comisión Territorial de Bari, que concedió la protección especial a un ciudadano marroquí en base a su fuerte y comprobada integración en Italia. El caso comenzó con una solicitud de protección internacional, que fue rechazada al no existir motivos de persecución ni riesgo grave en caso de retorno. Sin embargo, la Comisión destacó un aspecto fundamental: el solicitante vive y trabaja en Italia desde hace años, tiene un contrato de alquiler, un empleo estable en el sector de la construcción, mantiene sólidas relaciones sociales y participa activamente en la vida comunitaria local. La decisión subraya el principio de integración efectiva como un derecho jurídicamente protegido conforme al artículo 8 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, que garantiza el respeto de la vida privada y familiar. Según la Comisión, deportar al solicitante habría constituido una violación de este derecho, ya que habría interrumpido un proyecto de vida profundamente arraigado en la sociedad italiana. Esta decisión confirma una orientación jurídica cada vez más reconocida: la protección especial no es una medida residual, sino un instrumento jurídico que protege la esencia misma de la dignidad humana, cuando una persona extranjera ha construido en Italia su hogar, su identidad y su futuro. En un sistema que vincula cada vez más el derecho a permanecer con el concepto de integración, esta decisión representa un paso importante hacia una visión humana y equilibrada del derecho de inmigración, donde la pertenencia social se convierte en un verdadero derecho. Soy el abogado Fabio Loscerbo. Sígueme en Spreaker, Amazon Music y en todas mis redes sociales para mantenerte al día sobre casos, sentencias y novedades en materia de derecho de inmigración. Hasta el próximo episodio de Derecho de Inmigración. 🎙️ Título del pódcast: Cuando la integración se convierte en protección: la Comisión de Bari reconoce la protección especial 🎧 Texto del pódcast (en español): Bienvenidos a Derecho de Inmigración, el pódcast presentado por el abogado Fabio Loscerbo. Hoy hablaremos de una importante decisión de la Comisión Territorial de Bari, que concedió la protección especial a un ciudadano marroquí en base a su fuerte y comprobada integración en Italia. El caso comenzó con una solicitud de protección internacional, que fue rechazada al no existir motivos de persecución ni riesgo grave en caso de retorno. Sin embargo, la Comisión destacó un aspecto fundamental: el solicitante vive y trabaja en Italia desde hace años, tiene un contrato de alquiler, un empleo estable en el sector de la construcción, mantiene sólidas relaciones sociales y participa activamente en la vida comunitaria local. La decisión subraya el principio de integración efectiva como un derecho jurídicamente protegido conforme al artículo 8 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, que garantiza el respeto de la vida privada y familiar. Según la Comisión, deportar al solicitante habría constituido una violación de este derecho, ya que habría interrumpido un proyecto de vida profundamente arraigado en la sociedad italiana. Esta decisión confirma una orientación jurídica cada vez más reconocida: la protección especial no es una medida residual, sino un instrumento jurídico que protege la esencia misma de la dignidad humana, cuando una persona extranjera ha construido en Italia su hogar, su identidad y su futuro. En un sistema que vincula cada vez más el derecho a permanecer con el concepto de integración, esta decisión representa un paso importante hacia una visión humana y equilibrada del derecho de inmigración, donde la pertenencia social se convierte en un verdadero derecho. Soy el abogado Fabio Loscerbo. Sígueme en Spreaker, Amazon Music y en todas mis redes sociales para mantenerte al día sobre casos, sentencias y novedades en materia de derecho de inmigración. Hasta el próximo episodio de Derecho de Inmigración. https://ift.tt/WhR1ngs https://ift.tt/OqwVvL5

New on TikTok: 🎙️ Podcast Title: When Integration Becomes Protection: The Bari Commission Recognizes Special Protection 🎧 Podcast Script (English version): Welcome to Immigration Law, the podcast hosted by Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Today, we’re talking about an important decision by the Territorial Commission of Bari, which granted special protection to a Moroccan citizen based on his strong and proven integration in Italy. The case started with an application for international protection, which was rejected because there were no grounds for persecution or serious harm in case of return. However, the Commission highlighted a crucial aspect: the applicant has been living and working in Italy for years, holds a rental contract, a stable job in the construction sector, maintains solid social relationships, and takes part in the local community’s life. The decision therefore emphasizes the principle of effective integration as a legally protected right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for private and family life. According to the Commission, deporting the applicant would have violated this right, as it would have broken a life path now firmly rooted in Italian society. This decision reaffirms a growing legal orientation: special protection is not a residual or secondary safeguard, but a legal instrument that upholds the very essence of human dignity—when a foreigner has built their home, their identity, and their future in Italy. In a system increasingly linking the right to stay to the concept of integration, this decision represents an important step toward a balanced and humane vision of immigration law, where social belonging becomes a legal right. I am Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Follow me on Spreaker, Amazon Music, and all my social channels to stay updated on cases, rulings, and news in immigration law. See you in the next episode of Immigration Law.

🎙️ Podcast Title: When Integration Becomes Protection: The Bari Commission Recognizes Special Protection 🎧 Podcast Script (English version): Welcome to Immigration Law, the podcast hosted by Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Today, we’re talking about an important decision by the Territorial Commission of Bari, which granted special protection to a Moroccan citizen based on his strong and proven integration in Italy. The case started with an application for international protection, which was rejected because there were no grounds for persecution or serious harm in case of return. However, the Commission highlighted a crucial aspect: the applicant has been living and working in Italy for years, holds a rental contract, a stable job in the construction sector, maintains solid social relationships, and takes part in the local community’s life. The decision therefore emphasizes the principle of effective integration as a legally protected right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for private and family life. According to the Commission, deporting the applicant would have violated this right, as it would have broken a life path now firmly rooted in Italian society. This decision reaffirms a growing legal orientation: special protection is not a residual or secondary safeguard, but a legal instrument that upholds the very essence of human dignity—when a foreigner has built their home, their identity, and their future in Italy. In a system increasingly linking the right to stay to the concept of integration, this decision represents an important step toward a balanced and humane vision of immigration law, where social belonging becomes a legal right. I am Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Follow me on Spreaker, Amazon Music, and all my social channels to stay updated on cases, rulings, and news in immigration law. See you in the next episode of Immigration Law. 🎙️ Podcast Title: When Integration Becomes Protection: The Bari Commission Recognizes Special Protection 🎧 Podcast Script (English version): Welcome to Immigration Law, the podcast hosted by Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Today, we’re talking about an important decision by the Territorial Commission of Bari, which granted special protection to a Moroccan citizen based on his strong and proven integration in Italy. The case started with an application for international protection, which was rejected because there were no grounds for persecution or serious harm in case of return. However, the Commission highlighted a crucial aspect: the applicant has been living and working in Italy for years, holds a rental contract, a stable job in the construction sector, maintains solid social relationships, and takes part in the local community’s life. The decision therefore emphasizes the principle of effective integration as a legally protected right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees respect for private and family life. According to the Commission, deporting the applicant would have violated this right, as it would have broken a life path now firmly rooted in Italian society. This decision reaffirms a growing legal orientation: special protection is not a residual or secondary safeguard, but a legal instrument that upholds the very essence of human dignity—when a foreigner has built their home, their identity, and their future in Italy. In a system increasingly linking the right to stay to the concept of integration, this decision represents an important step toward a balanced and humane vision of immigration law, where social belonging becomes a legal right. I am Lawyer Fabio Loscerbo. Follow me on Spreaker, Amazon Music, and all my social channels to stay updated on cases, rulings, and news in immigration law. See you in the next episode of Immigration Law. https://ift.tt/52zVxLj https://ift.tt/hLvEuQg

New on TikTok: 🎙️ Titolo del podcast: Quando l’integrazione diventa tutela: la protezione speciale riconosciuta dalla Commissione di Bari 🎧 Testo del podcast: Benvenuti a Diritto dell’Immigrazione, il podcast a cura dell’avvocato Fabio Loscerbo. Oggi parliamo di una decisione significativa della Commissione Territoriale di Bari, che ha riconosciuto la protezione speciale a un cittadino marocchino sulla base del suo forte radicamento in Italia. Il caso nasce da una domanda di protezione internazionale, rigettata perché non sussistevano motivi di persecuzione o rischio grave in caso di rimpatrio. Tuttavia, la Commissione ha evidenziato un aspetto fondamentale: l’interessato vive e lavora stabilmente in Italia da anni, ha un contratto di locazione, un lavoro continuativo nel settore edile, relazioni sociali solide e partecipa attivamente alla vita della comunità locale. La decisione valorizza quindi il principio dell’integrazione effettiva come elemento giuridicamente tutelato dall’articolo 8 della Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, che garantisce il diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare. Secondo la Commissione, l’espulsione avrebbe comportato una violazione di questo diritto, poiché avrebbe spezzato un percorso di vita ormai radicato nel tessuto sociale italiano. È una decisione che conferma un orientamento ormai consolidato: la protezione speciale non è solo uno strumento residuale, ma un istituto che tutela l’essenza stessa della dignità umana, quando lo straniero ha costruito in Italia la propria casa, la propria identità e il proprio futuro. In un sistema che sempre più lega il diritto a rimanere al concetto di integrazione, questa decisione segna un passo importante verso una visione equilibrata e umana del diritto dell’immigrazione, dove l’appartenenza sociale diventa parte del diritto. Io sono l’avvocato Fabio Loscerbo. Puoi seguirmi su Spreaker, Amazon Music e su tutti i miei canali social per restare aggiornato su casi, sentenze e novità nel diritto dell’immigrazione. Alla prossima puntata di Diritto dell’Immigrazione.

🎙️ Titolo del podcast: Quando l’integrazione diventa tutela: la protezione speciale riconosciuta dalla Commissione di Bari 🎧 Testo del podcast: Benvenuti a Diritto dell’Immigrazione, il podcast a cura dell’avvocato Fabio Loscerbo. Oggi parliamo di una decisione significativa della Commissione Territoriale di Bari, che ha riconosciuto la protezione speciale a un cittadino marocchino sulla base del suo forte radicamento in Italia. Il caso nasce da una domanda di protezione internazionale, rigettata perché non sussistevano motivi di persecuzione o rischio grave in caso di rimpatrio. Tuttavia, la Commissione ha evidenziato un aspetto fondamentale: l’interessato vive e lavora stabilmente in Italia da anni, ha un contratto di locazione, un lavoro continuativo nel settore edile, relazioni sociali solide e partecipa attivamente alla vita della comunità locale. La decisione valorizza quindi il principio dell’integrazione effettiva come elemento giuridicamente tutelato dall’articolo 8 della Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, che garantisce il diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare. Secondo la Commissione, l’espulsione avrebbe comportato una violazione di questo diritto, poiché avrebbe spezzato un percorso di vita ormai radicato nel tessuto sociale italiano. È una decisione che conferma un orientamento ormai consolidato: la protezione speciale non è solo uno strumento residuale, ma un istituto che tutela l’essenza stessa della dignità umana, quando lo straniero ha costruito in Italia la propria casa, la propria identità e il proprio futuro. In un sistema che sempre più lega il diritto a rimanere al concetto di integrazione, questa decisione segna un passo importante verso una visione equilibrata e umana del diritto dell’immigrazione, dove l’appartenenza sociale diventa parte del diritto. Io sono l’avvocato Fabio Loscerbo. Puoi seguirmi su Spreaker, Amazon Music e su tutti i miei canali social per restare aggiornato su casi, sentenze e novità nel diritto dell’immigrazione. Alla prossima puntata di Diritto dell’Immigrazione. 🎙️ Titolo del podcast: Quando l’integrazione diventa tutela: la protezione speciale riconosciuta dalla Commissione di Bari 🎧 Testo del podcast: Benvenuti a Diritto dell’Immigrazione, il podcast a cura dell’avvocato Fabio Loscerbo. Oggi parliamo di una decisione significativa della Commissione Territoriale di Bari, che ha riconosciuto la protezione speciale a un cittadino marocchino sulla base del suo forte radicamento in Italia. Il caso nasce da una domanda di protezione internazionale, rigettata perché non sussistevano motivi di persecuzione o rischio grave in caso di rimpatrio. Tuttavia, la Commissione ha evidenziato un aspetto fondamentale: l’interessato vive e lavora stabilmente in Italia da anni, ha un contratto di locazione, un lavoro continuativo nel settore edile, relazioni sociali solide e partecipa attivamente alla vita della comunità locale. La decisione valorizza quindi il principio dell’integrazione effettiva come elemento giuridicamente tutelato dall’articolo 8 della Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, che garantisce il diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare. Secondo la Commissione, l’espulsione avrebbe comportato una violazione di questo diritto, poiché avrebbe spezzato un percorso di vita ormai radicato nel tessuto sociale italiano. È una decisione che conferma un orientamento ormai consolidato: la protezione speciale non è solo uno strumento residuale, ma un istituto che tutela l’essenza stessa della dignità umana, quando lo straniero ha costruito in Italia la propria casa, la propria identità e il proprio futuro. In un sistema che sempre più lega il diritto a rimanere al concetto di integrazione, questa decisione segna un passo importante verso una visione equilibrata e umana del diritto dell’immigrazione, dove l’appartenenza sociale diventa parte del diritto. Io sono l’avvocato Fabio Loscerbo. Puoi seguirmi su Spreaker, Amazon Music e su tutti i miei canali social per restare aggiornato su casi, sentenze e novità nel diritto dell’immigrazione. Alla prossima puntata di Diritto dell’Immigrazione. https://ift.tt/2dIapv8 https://ift.tt/gsl6P8z

New on TikTok: 🎓 تكوين قانوني – نوفمبر 2025 من تنظيم الأستاذ المحامي فابيو لوسيربو ثلاثة لقاءات للتكوين المهني المعتمد من نقابة المحامين في بولونيا، مخصصة لمواضيع قانون الهجرة والدفاع عن طالبي الحماية. 📌 الجمعة 7 نوفمبر 2025 الحق في تقديم طلب الحماية دون إلزام بتصريح الضيافة تأملات حول أمر المحكمة في بولونيا، رقم R.G. 1836/2025 📌 الجمعة 14 نوفمبر 2025 الحق في تقديم طلب الحماية والقيود التنظيمية لقسم الشرطة (Questura) تأملات حول أمر المحكمة في بولونيا، رقم R.G. 3698/2025 📌 الجمعة 21 نوفمبر 2025 الجوانب الأخلاقية في الدفاع عن طالبي الحماية وتوجهات المجلس التأديبي الإقليمي للمحامين 📍 قاعة مجلس حي رينو "روساريو أنجلو ليفاتينو" شارع باتيندارنو 127 — بولونيا 🕒 من الساعة 15:00 إلى 17:00 💼 فعالية مجانية | نقطتان للتكوين المهني لكل لقاء للتسجيل: ✉️ avv.loscerbo@gmail.com #تكوين_المحامين #قانون_الهجرة #نقابة_محامي_بولونيا #الأخلاقيات_المهنية #الحماية_الدولية

https://ift.tt/I6qYgpJ 🎓 تكوين قانوني – نوفمبر 2025 من تنظيم الأستاذ المحامي فابيو لوسيربو ثلاثة لقاءات للتكوين المهني المعتمد من نقابة المحامين في بولونيا، مخصصة لمواضيع قانون الهجرة والدفاع عن طالبي الحماية. 📌 الجمعة 7 نوفمبر 2025 الحق في تقديم طلب الحماية دون إلزام بتصريح الضيافة تأملات حول أمر المحكمة في بولونيا، رقم R.G. 1836/2025 📌 الجمعة 14 نوفمبر 2025 الحق في تقديم طلب الحماية والقيود التنظيمية لقسم الشرطة (Questura) تأملات حول أمر المحكمة في بولونيا، رقم R.G. 3698/2025 📌 الجمعة 21 نوفمبر 2025 الجوانب الأخلاقية في الدفاع عن طالبي الحماية وتوجهات المجلس التأديبي الإقليمي للمحامين 📍 قاعة مجلس حي رينو "روساريو أنجلو ليفاتينو" شارع باتيندارنو 127 — بولونيا 🕒 من الساعة 15:00 إلى 17:00 💼 فعالية مجانية | نقطتان للتكوين المهني لكل لقاء للتسجيل: ✉️ avv.loscerbo@gmail.com #تكوين_المحامين #قانون_الهجرة #نقابة_محامي_بولونيا #الأخلاقيات_المهنية #الحماية_الدولية https://ift.tt/I6qYgpJ https://ift.tt/fcySsaY

New on TikTok: 🎓 FORMAZIONE IN PILLOLE — Novembre 2025 A cura dell’Avv. Fabio Loscerbo Tre incontri di aggiornamento professionale accreditati dal Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Bologna, dedicati al diritto dell’immigrazione e alla difesa dei richiedenti protezione. 📌 Venerdì 7 novembre 2025 Il diritto a presentare domanda di protezione senza l’obbligo della dichiarazione di ospitalità Riflessioni sull’ordinanza del Tribunale di Bologna, R.G. 1836/2025 📌 Venerdì 14 novembre 2025 Il diritto a presentare domanda di protezione ed i limiti organizzativi della Questura Riflessioni sull’ordinanza del Tribunale di Bologna, R.G. 3698/2025 📌 Venerdì 21 novembre 2025 Profili deontologici nella difesa dei richiedenti protezione e l’orientamento del Consiglio Distrettuale di Disciplina 📍 Sala Consiliare Quartiere Reno “Rosario Angelo Livatino” Via Battindarno 127 — Bologna 🕒 Ore 15:00 – 17:00 💼 Evento gratuito | 2 crediti formativi per ciascun incontro Per iscrizioni: ✉️ avv.loscerbo@gmail.com #FormazioneAvvocati #DirittoImmigrazione #COABologna #DeontologiaForense #ProtezioneInternazionale

https://ift.tt/xTzb3pl 🎓 FORMAZIONE IN PILLOLE — Novembre 2025 A cura dell’Avv. Fabio Loscerbo Tre incontri di aggiornamento professionale accreditati dal Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Bologna, dedicati al diritto dell’immigrazione e alla difesa dei richiedenti protezione. 📌 Venerdì 7 novembre 2025 Il diritto a presentare domanda di protezione senza l’obbligo della dichiarazione di ospitalità Riflessioni sull’ordinanza del Tribunale di Bologna, R.G. 1836/2025 📌 Venerdì 14 novembre 2025 Il diritto a presentare domanda di protezione ed i limiti organizzativi della Questura Riflessioni sull’ordinanza del Tribunale di Bologna, R.G. 3698/2025 📌 Venerdì 21 novembre 2025 Profili deontologici nella difesa dei richiedenti protezione e l’orientamento del Consiglio Distrettuale di Disciplina 📍 Sala Consiliare Quartiere Reno “Rosario Angelo Livatino” Via Battindarno 127 — Bologna 🕒 Ore 15:00 – 17:00 💼 Evento gratuito | 2 crediti formativi per ciascun incontro Per iscrizioni: ✉️ avv.loscerbo@gmail.com #FormazioneAvvocati #DirittoImmigrazione #COABologna #DeontologiaForense #ProtezioneInternazionale https://ift.tt/xTzb3pl https://ift.tt/N69WzAL