Press Release – Publication of New Episodes of the Podcast “Immigration Law” https://ift.tt/6MF5vjh Press Release – Publication of New Episodes of the Podcast “Immigration Law” New episodes of the podcast “Immigration Law” have been released, focusing on a topic of significant practical and legal relevance: the relationship between criminal records and the renewal of residence permits, and the limits of administrative discretion. The episodes draw inspiration from a recent administrative court decision and address, with clear yet legally rigorous language, a central issue in the practice of Police Headquarters and in immigration-related litigation: the impossibility of denying a residence permit on the basis of automatic mechanisms, in the absence of a concrete, current, and individualized assessment of the alleged social dangerousness of the individual concerned. The content has been published in multiple languages, with the aim of reaching a broad audience, including foreign nationals, legal practitioners, and scholars in the field. 🔗 Listen to the episodes: 🇬🇧 English Residence Permit and Criminal Records: The Limits of Administrative Discretion https://ift.tt/F7pdv4q 🇸🇦 Arabic تصريح الإقامة والسوابق الجنائية: حدود السلطة التقديرية للإدارة https://ift.tt/8WNROCu 🇪🇸 Spanish Permiso de residencia y antecedentes penales: los límites de la discrecionalidad administrativa https://ift.tt/O6rQZk1 🇫🇷 French Titre de séjour et antécédents pénaux : les limites du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l’administration https://ift.tt/Celc6M0 🇦🇱 Albanian Leja e qëndrimit dhe precedentët penalë: kufijtë e diskrecionalitetit administrativ https://ift.tt/FVHfrdW The podcast “Immigration Law” thus continues its path of legal dissemination, aiming to make the fundamental principles of immigration law accessible without sacrificing technical rigor or critical engagement with administrative practice. Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/Od8fiGH from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/P2vJQuz via IFTTT

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/P2vJQuz
via IFTTT

Press Release – Publication of New Episodes of the Podcast “Immigration Law” https://ift.tt/6MF5vjh Press Release – Publication of New Episodes of the Podcast “Immigration Law” New episodes of the podcast “Immigration Law” have been released, focusing on a topic of significant practical and legal relevance: the relationship between criminal records and the renewal of residence permits, and the limits of administrative discretion. The episodes draw inspiration from a recent administrative court decision and address, with clear yet legally rigorous language, a central issue in the practice of Police Headquarters and in immigration-related litigation: the impossibility of denying a residence permit on the basis of automatic mechanisms, in the absence of a concrete, current, and individualized assessment of the alleged social dangerousness of the individual concerned. The content has been published in multiple languages, with the aim of reaching a broad audience, including foreign nationals, legal practitioners, and scholars in the field. 🔗 Listen to the episodes: 🇬🇧 English Residence Permit and Criminal Records: The Limits of Administrative Discretion https://ift.tt/F7pdv4q 🇸🇦 Arabic تصريح الإقامة والسوابق الجنائية: حدود السلطة التقديرية للإدارة https://ift.tt/8WNROCu 🇪🇸 Spanish Permiso de residencia y antecedentes penales: los límites de la discrecionalidad administrativa https://ift.tt/O6rQZk1 🇫🇷 French Titre de séjour et antécédents pénaux : les limites du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l’administration https://ift.tt/Celc6M0 🇦🇱 Albanian Leja e qëndrimit dhe precedentët penalë: kufijtë e diskrecionalitetit administrativ https://ift.tt/FVHfrdW The podcast “Immigration Law” thus continues its path of legal dissemination, aiming to make the fundamental principles of immigration law accessible without sacrificing technical rigor or critical engagement with administrative practice. Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/P2vJQuz
via IFTTT

New on TikTok: Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit, Late Filing, and Administrative Review: Clarifications from the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and in this new episode of the podcast Immigration Law we analyze a particularly relevant ruling concerning the conversion of a residence permit from seasonal work to subordinate employment, issued by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on December 22, 2025, in general registry case number 1710 of 2025. The case originates from a denial issued by the Immigration Desk of the Prefecture of Modena against a seasonal worker who had applied for conversion after the expiration of his residence permit. The Administration based the refusal on three arguments that frequently recur in practice: the alleged late filing of the application, the failure to meet the requirement of 39 working days, and the supposed irrelevance of the defensive observations submitted during the administrative procedure. The Court first addresses the issue of procedural adversarial participation, clarifying that it cannot be treated as a mere formality. In this case, the Administration ignored a written submission filed pursuant to Article 10-bis of Law No. 241 of 1990, incorrectly stating that the applicant had not provided any observations. According to the Court, this omission directly affects the lawfulness of the decision, as it prevents a complete administrative investigation and an adequate statement of reasons. With regard to the requirement of 39 working days, the Court recalls that, in the agricultural sector, seasonal work is assessed by days worked and on the basis of actual social security contributions. In the case examined, the documentation showed that the minimum threshold had been exceeded, yet the Administration had carried out no concrete verification, limiting itself to a purely assertive denial. On this point as well, the decision was found to be flawed. The most delicate issue concerns the late filing of the conversion request. The Court reaffirms a principle that is now well established: Article 24, paragraph 10, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act does not provide for any mandatory deadline. The expiration of the seasonal permit does not automatically preclude conversion. The only relevant limit is that of reasonableness, which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this specific situation, despite a significant delay, the continuity of the applicant’s employment excluded any elusive or abusive intent. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the Administration was ordered to reassess the case within sixty days. This decision sends a clear message: the administrative management of immigration cannot be based on automatic refusals, formalistic approaches, or superficial investigations, but must instead be grounded in factual circumstances, actual employment, and procedural safeguards. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. https://ift.tt/5GQt8xu https://ift.tt/t7o5Zjk https://ift.tt/YUzhVm8 from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME via IFTTT https://ift.tt/HLSDOGK from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME via IFTTT https://ift.tt/0mxlvGh from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME via IFTTT

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME
via IFTTT

New on TikTok: Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit, Late Filing, and Administrative Review: Clarifications from the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and in this new episode of the podcast Immigration Law we analyze a particularly relevant ruling concerning the conversion of a residence permit from seasonal work to subordinate employment, issued by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on December 22, 2025, in general registry case number 1710 of 2025. The case originates from a denial issued by the Immigration Desk of the Prefecture of Modena against a seasonal worker who had applied for conversion after the expiration of his residence permit. The Administration based the refusal on three arguments that frequently recur in practice: the alleged late filing of the application, the failure to meet the requirement of 39 working days, and the supposed irrelevance of the defensive observations submitted during the administrative procedure. The Court first addresses the issue of procedural adversarial participation, clarifying that it cannot be treated as a mere formality. In this case, the Administration ignored a written submission filed pursuant to Article 10-bis of Law No. 241 of 1990, incorrectly stating that the applicant had not provided any observations. According to the Court, this omission directly affects the lawfulness of the decision, as it prevents a complete administrative investigation and an adequate statement of reasons. With regard to the requirement of 39 working days, the Court recalls that, in the agricultural sector, seasonal work is assessed by days worked and on the basis of actual social security contributions. In the case examined, the documentation showed that the minimum threshold had been exceeded, yet the Administration had carried out no concrete verification, limiting itself to a purely assertive denial. On this point as well, the decision was found to be flawed. The most delicate issue concerns the late filing of the conversion request. The Court reaffirms a principle that is now well established: Article 24, paragraph 10, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act does not provide for any mandatory deadline. The expiration of the seasonal permit does not automatically preclude conversion. The only relevant limit is that of reasonableness, which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this specific situation, despite a significant delay, the continuity of the applicant’s employment excluded any elusive or abusive intent. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the Administration was ordered to reassess the case within sixty days. This decision sends a clear message: the administrative management of immigration cannot be based on automatic refusals, formalistic approaches, or superficial investigations, but must instead be grounded in factual circumstances, actual employment, and procedural safeguards. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. https://ift.tt/5GQt8xu https://ift.tt/t7o5Zjk https://ift.tt/YUzhVm8 from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME via IFTTT https://ift.tt/HLSDOGK from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME via IFTTT

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME
via IFTTT

New on TikTok: Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit, Late Filing, and Administrative Review: Clarifications from the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and in this new episode of the podcast Immigration Law we analyze a particularly relevant ruling concerning the conversion of a residence permit from seasonal work to subordinate employment, issued by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on December 22, 2025, in general registry case number 1710 of 2025. The case originates from a denial issued by the Immigration Desk of the Prefecture of Modena against a seasonal worker who had applied for conversion after the expiration of his residence permit. The Administration based the refusal on three arguments that frequently recur in practice: the alleged late filing of the application, the failure to meet the requirement of 39 working days, and the supposed irrelevance of the defensive observations submitted during the administrative procedure. The Court first addresses the issue of procedural adversarial participation, clarifying that it cannot be treated as a mere formality. In this case, the Administration ignored a written submission filed pursuant to Article 10-bis of Law No. 241 of 1990, incorrectly stating that the applicant had not provided any observations. According to the Court, this omission directly affects the lawfulness of the decision, as it prevents a complete administrative investigation and an adequate statement of reasons. With regard to the requirement of 39 working days, the Court recalls that, in the agricultural sector, seasonal work is assessed by days worked and on the basis of actual social security contributions. In the case examined, the documentation showed that the minimum threshold had been exceeded, yet the Administration had carried out no concrete verification, limiting itself to a purely assertive denial. On this point as well, the decision was found to be flawed. The most delicate issue concerns the late filing of the conversion request. The Court reaffirms a principle that is now well established: Article 24, paragraph 10, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act does not provide for any mandatory deadline. The expiration of the seasonal permit does not automatically preclude conversion. The only relevant limit is that of reasonableness, which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this specific situation, despite a significant delay, the continuity of the applicant’s employment excluded any elusive or abusive intent. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the Administration was ordered to reassess the case within sixty days. This decision sends a clear message: the administrative management of immigration cannot be based on automatic refusals, formalistic approaches, or superficial investigations, but must instead be grounded in factual circumstances, actual employment, and procedural safeguards. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. https://ift.tt/5GQt8xu https://ift.tt/t7o5Zjk https://ift.tt/YUzhVm8 from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME via IFTTT

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME
via IFTTT

New on TikTok: Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit, Late Filing, and Administrative Review: Clarifications from the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and in this new episode of the podcast Immigration Law we analyze a particularly relevant ruling concerning the conversion of a residence permit from seasonal work to subordinate employment, issued by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on December 22, 2025, in general registry case number 1710 of 2025. The case originates from a denial issued by the Immigration Desk of the Prefecture of Modena against a seasonal worker who had applied for conversion after the expiration of his residence permit. The Administration based the refusal on three arguments that frequently recur in practice: the alleged late filing of the application, the failure to meet the requirement of 39 working days, and the supposed irrelevance of the defensive observations submitted during the administrative procedure. The Court first addresses the issue of procedural adversarial participation, clarifying that it cannot be treated as a mere formality. In this case, the Administration ignored a written submission filed pursuant to Article 10-bis of Law No. 241 of 1990, incorrectly stating that the applicant had not provided any observations. According to the Court, this omission directly affects the lawfulness of the decision, as it prevents a complete administrative investigation and an adequate statement of reasons. With regard to the requirement of 39 working days, the Court recalls that, in the agricultural sector, seasonal work is assessed by days worked and on the basis of actual social security contributions. In the case examined, the documentation showed that the minimum threshold had been exceeded, yet the Administration had carried out no concrete verification, limiting itself to a purely assertive denial. On this point as well, the decision was found to be flawed. The most delicate issue concerns the late filing of the conversion request. The Court reaffirms a principle that is now well established: Article 24, paragraph 10, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act does not provide for any mandatory deadline. The expiration of the seasonal permit does not automatically preclude conversion. The only relevant limit is that of reasonableness, which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this specific situation, despite a significant delay, the continuity of the applicant’s employment excluded any elusive or abusive intent. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the Administration was ordered to reassess the case within sixty days. This decision sends a clear message: the administrative management of immigration cannot be based on automatic refusals, formalistic approaches, or superficial investigations, but must instead be grounded in factual circumstances, actual employment, and procedural safeguards. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. https://ift.tt/5GQt8xu https://ift.tt/t7o5Zjk

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME
via IFTTT

Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit, Late Filing, and Administrative Review: Clarifications from the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and in this new episode of the podcast Immigration Law we analyze a particularly relevant ruling concerning the conversion of a residence permit from seasonal work to subordinate employment, issued by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on December 22, 2025, in general registry case number 1710 of 2025. The case originates from a denial issued by the Immigration Desk of the Prefecture of Modena against a seasonal worker who had applied for conversion after the expiration of his residence permit. The Administration based the refusal on three arguments that frequently recur in practice: the alleged late filing of the application, the failure to meet the requirement of 39 working days, and the supposed irrelevance of the defensive observations submitted during the administrative procedure. The Court first addresses the issue of procedural adversarial participation, clarifying that it cannot be treated as a mere formality. In this case, the Administration ignored a written submission filed pursuant to Article 10-bis of Law No. 241 of 1990, incorrectly stating that the applicant had not provided any observations. According to the Court, this omission directly affects the lawfulness of the decision, as it prevents a complete administrative investigation and an adequate statement of reasons. With regard to the requirement of 39 working days, the Court recalls that, in the agricultural sector, seasonal work is assessed by days worked and on the basis of actual social security contributions. In the case examined, the documentation showed that the minimum threshold had been exceeded, yet the Administration had carried out no concrete verification, limiting itself to a purely assertive denial. On this point as well, the decision was found to be flawed. The most delicate issue concerns the late filing of the conversion request. The Court reaffirms a principle that is now well established: Article 24, paragraph 10, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act does not provide for any mandatory deadline. The expiration of the seasonal permit does not automatically preclude conversion. The only relevant limit is that of reasonableness, which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this specific situation, despite a significant delay, the continuity of the applicant’s employment excluded any elusive or abusive intent. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the Administration was ordered to reassess the case within sixty days. This decision sends a clear message: the administrative management of immigration cannot be based on automatic refusals, formalistic approaches, or superficial investigations, but must instead be grounded in factual circumstances, actual employment, and procedural safeguards. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit, Late Filing, and Administrative Review: Clarifications from the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and in this new episode of the podcast Immigration Law we analyze a particularly relevant ruling concerning the conversion of a residence permit from seasonal work to subordinate employment, issued by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on December 22, 2025, in general registry case number 1710 of 2025. The case originates from a denial issued by the Immigration Desk of the Prefecture of Modena against a seasonal worker who had applied for conversion after the expiration of his residence permit. The Administration based the refusal on three arguments that frequently recur in practice: the alleged late filing of the application, the failure to meet the requirement of 39 working days, and the supposed irrelevance of the defensive observations submitted during the administrative procedure. The Court first addresses the issue of procedural adversarial participation, clarifying that it cannot be treated as a mere formality. In this case, the Administration ignored a written submission filed pursuant to Article 10-bis of Law No. 241 of 1990, incorrectly stating that the applicant had not provided any observations. According to the Court, this omission directly affects the lawfulness of the decision, as it prevents a complete administrative investigation and an adequate statement of reasons. With regard to the requirement of 39 working days, the Court recalls that, in the agricultural sector, seasonal work is assessed by days worked and on the basis of actual social security contributions. In the case examined, the documentation showed that the minimum threshold had been exceeded, yet the Administration had carried out no concrete verification, limiting itself to a purely assertive denial. On this point as well, the decision was found to be flawed. The most delicate issue concerns the late filing of the conversion request. The Court reaffirms a principle that is now well established: Article 24, paragraph 10, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act does not provide for any mandatory deadline. The expiration of the seasonal permit does not automatically preclude conversion. The only relevant limit is that of reasonableness, which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this specific situation, despite a significant delay, the continuity of the applicant’s employment excluded any elusive or abusive intent. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the Administration was ordered to reassess the case within sixty days. This decision sends a clear message: the administrative management of immigration cannot be based on automatic refusals, formalistic approaches, or superficial investigations, but must instead be grounded in factual circumstances, actual employment, and procedural safeguards. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. https://ift.tt/t7o5Zjk https://ift.tt/Lhk7Sad https://ift.tt/ebmgrqh

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/bfT59ME
via IFTTT

New on TikTok: Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit, Late Filing, and Administrative Review: Clarifications from the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and in this new episode of the podcast Immigration Law we analyze a particularly relevant ruling concerning the conversion of a residence permit from seasonal work to subordinate employment, issued by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on December 22, 2025, in general registry case number 1710 of 2025. The case originates from a denial issued by the Immigration Desk of the Prefecture of Modena against a seasonal worker who had applied for conversion after the expiration of his residence permit. The Administration based the refusal on three arguments that frequently recur in practice: the alleged late filing of the application, the failure to meet the requirement of 39 working days, and the supposed irrelevance of the defensive observations submitted during the administrative procedure. The Court first addresses the issue of procedural adversarial participation, clarifying that it cannot be treated as a mere formality. In this case, the Administration ignored a written submission filed pursuant to Article 10-bis of Law No. 241 of 1990, incorrectly stating that the applicant had not provided any observations. According to the Court, this omission directly affects the lawfulness of the decision, as it prevents a complete administrative investigation and an adequate statement of reasons. With regard to the requirement of 39 working days, the Court recalls that, in the agricultural sector, seasonal work is assessed by days worked and on the basis of actual social security contributions. In the case examined, the documentation showed that the minimum threshold had been exceeded, yet the Administration had carried out no concrete verification, limiting itself to a purely assertive denial. On this point as well, the decision was found to be flawed. The most delicate issue concerns the late filing of the conversion request. The Court reaffirms a principle that is now well established: Article 24, paragraph 10, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act does not provide for any mandatory deadline. The expiration of the seasonal permit does not automatically preclude conversion. The only relevant limit is that of reasonableness, which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this specific situation, despite a significant delay, the continuity of the applicant’s employment excluded any elusive or abusive intent. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the Administration was ordered to reassess the case within sixty days. This decision sends a clear message: the administrative management of immigration cannot be based on automatic refusals, formalistic approaches, or superficial investigations, but must instead be grounded in factual circumstances, actual employment, and procedural safeguards. I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this was a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law.

https://ift.tt/t7o5Zjk

https://ift.tt/JG8cdVk https://ift.tt/HALJxMf https://ift.tt/zgUmklR https://ift.tt/Wl56ZnS from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/PAExa07 via IFTTT https://ift.tt/bFkJpR8 from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/PAExa07 via IFTTT

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/PAExa07
via IFTTT

https://ift.tt/JG8cdVk https://ift.tt/HALJxMf https://ift.tt/zgUmklR https://ift.tt/Wl56ZnS from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/PAExa07 via IFTTT

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/PAExa07
via IFTTT

https://ift.tt/JG8cdVk https://ift.tt/HALJxMf https://ift.tt/zgUmklR

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/PAExa07
via IFTTT

La protection complémentaire après le décret-loi n° 20/2023 : continuité jurisprudentielle et protection de la vie privée et familiale dans la jurisprudence récente de fond https://ift.tt/zHT3xsj La protection complémentaire après le décret-loi n° 20/2023 : continuité jurisprudentielle et protection de la vie privée et familiale dans la jurisprudence récente de fond Résumé Le présent article examine une décision récente rendue par un tribunal ordinaire, section spécialisée en matière d’immigration, de protection internationale et de libre circulation des citoyens de l’Union européenne, ayant reconnu le droit à la délivrance d’un titre de séjour pour protection complémentaire au titre de l’article 19, paragraphes 1 et 1.1, du décret législatif n° 286 de 1998. Rendue à l’issue d’une procédure dans laquelle le requérant a renoncé aux formes de protection « supérieures », cette décision offre l’occasion d’une réflexion systématique sur le régime juridique de la protection complémentaire à la suite des modifications introduites par le décret-loi n° 20 de 2023, converti en loi n° 50 de 2023, ainsi que sur le rôle central de la jurisprudence — en particulier celle de la Cour de cassation — dans la concrétisation d’une clause législative délibérément formulée de manière souple. Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible dans la publication Calameo au lien suivant : https://ift.tt/VX26LdC 1. Introduction La protection complémentaire constitue aujourd’hui l’un des domaines les plus délicats du droit italien de l’immigration. Elle se situe au croisement du droit constitutionnel d’asile, des obligations internationales assumées par l’État et des choix de politique législative visant au contrôle des flux migratoires. La décision commentée s’inscrit pleinement dans ce cadre, en proposant une reconstruction argumentée du régime juridique applicable et, surtout, un exemple concret de mise en œuvre des critères élaborés par la jurisprudence nationale et supranationale. 2. Le cadre juridique après le décret-loi n° 20/2023 Le tribunal débute son analyse par un examen attentif de l’évolution de l’article 19 du texte unique sur l’immigration. Après la réforme de 2020, qui avait codifié les critères d’évaluation de la protection de la vie privée et familiale, le décret-loi n° 20 de 2023 est intervenu à nouveau en abrogeant certaines parties du paragraphe 1.1. Cette intervention n’a toutefois pas supprimé la protection du droit de l’étranger au respect de sa vie privée et familiale, laquelle continue de trouver son fondement dans les obligations constitutionnelles et conventionnelles, en particulier dans l’article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. La décision souligne que le cadre juridique actuel impose à l’interprète un retour à des critères d’évaluation d’origine jurisprudentielle, dépassant ainsi la phase de typification normative renforcée introduite en 2020. Dans cette perspective, la protection complémentaire n’est pas vidée de sa substance, mais de nouveau confiée à la fonction de mise en balance du juge. 3. Le rôle de la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation Une importance particulière est accordée aux références à la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation, laquelle a précisé que la réforme de 2023 n’a pas entraîné de recul dans la protection des droits fondamentaux de l’étranger. La décision adhère à l’orientation selon laquelle la protection complémentaire peut être accordée lorsque l’enracinement sur le territoire national est tel que l’éloignement apparaîtrait disproportionné au regard des intérêts publics poursuivis. Dans cette optique, le juge du fond se réfère expressément aux principes de mise en balance et de proportionnalité, déjà développés dans la jurisprudence antérieure relative à la protection humanitaire, réaffirmant ainsi la continuité systématique entre les différentes phases législatives. 4. L’évaluation de l’enracinement et de la vie privée Le cœur de la motivation réside dans l’évaluation concrète de la vie privée du requérant. Le tribunal procède à une analyse globale et non fragmentée des indices d’intégration, tels que la durée de la présence en Italie, l’insertion professionnelle stable, l’autonomie économique, la connaissance de la langue, les relations sociales et la capacité à vivre de manière indépendante en dehors du système d’accueil. Ces éléments sont interprétés comme l’expression d’une vie privée consolidée, dont l’atteinte — en l’absence de raisons impérieuses tenant à l’ordre public ou à la sécurité publique — est incompatible avec l’article 8 de la CEDH. Le retour dans le pays d’origine n’est pas apprécié de manière abstraite, mais au regard du risque concret de déracinement et de dégradation significative des conditions de vie acquises en Italie. 5. Conclusions La décision confirme que la protection complémentaire, même après le décret-loi n° 20 de 2023, demeure un instrument essentiel de protection des droits fondamentaux des étrangers. L’absence de critères législatifs rigides ne crée pas un vide de protection, mais exige au contraire un exercice responsable du pouvoir d’appréciation judiciaire, fondé sur des paramètres constitutionnels, conventionnels et jurisprudentiels. Dans cette perspective, la décision s’inscrit dans une approche interprétative orientée vers la continuité et la rationalité du système juridique, en réaffirmant que l’intégration effective et l’enracinement social ne constituent pas des éléments marginaux, mais des facteurs centraux dans l’appréciation de la légalité de l’éloignement de l’étranger du territoire national. Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

from Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/PAExa07
via IFTTT

La protezione complementare dopo il decreto-legge 20/2023: continuità giurisprudenziale e tutela della vita privata e familiare nella recente giurisprudenza di merito

 La protezione complementare dopo il decreto-legge 20/2023: continuità giurisprudenziale e tutela della vita privata e familiare nella recente giurisprudenza di merito

---

Abstract

Il contributo esamina un recente decreto reso da un Tribunale ordinario, Sezione specializzata in materia di immigrazione, protezione internazionale e libera circolazione dei cittadini dell’Unione europea, con cui è stato riconosciuto il diritto al rilascio di un permesso di soggiorno per protezione complementare ai sensi dell’articolo 19, commi 1 e 1.1, del decreto legislativo 286 del 1998. Il provvedimento, pronunciato all’esito di un giudizio nel quale il ricorrente ha rinunciato alle forme di protezione “maggiori”, offre lo spunto per una riflessione sistematica sul regime giuridico della protezione complementare dopo le modifiche introdotte dal decreto-legge 20 del 2023, convertito dalla legge 50 del 2023, e sul ruolo centrale della giurisprudenza, in particolare di legittimità, nel riempire di contenuto una clausola normativa volutamente elastica. Il decreto è consultabile integralmente nella pubblicazione Calameo al seguente indirizzo: https://www.calameo.com/books/00807977541b94e1f7da1

---

1. Premessa

La protezione complementare rappresenta oggi uno degli snodi più delicati del diritto dell’immigrazione italiano. Essa si colloca in una zona di confine tra il diritto costituzionale d’asilo, gli obblighi internazionali assunti dallo Stato e le scelte di politica legislativa in materia di controllo dei flussi migratori. Il decreto in commento si inserisce in questo contesto, offrendo una ricostruzione argomentata della disciplina vigente e, soprattutto, un esempio di applicazione concreta dei criteri elaborati dalla giurisprudenza nazionale e sovranazionale.

2. Il quadro normativo dopo il decreto-legge 20/2023

Il Tribunale muove da una ricognizione puntuale dell’evoluzione dell’articolo 19 del Testo Unico sull’immigrazione. Dopo la riforma del 2020, che aveva tipizzato i criteri di valutazione della tutela della vita privata e familiare, il decreto-legge 20 del 2023 ha inciso nuovamente sulla disposizione, abrogando alcune parti del comma 1.1. Tale intervento, tuttavia, non ha eliminato la tutela del diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare dello straniero, che continua a trovare fondamento negli obblighi costituzionali e convenzionali, in particolare nell’articolo 8 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo.

Il decreto evidenzia come la disciplina vigente imponga all’interprete un ritorno a criteri di valutazione di matrice giurisprudenziale, superando la fase di maggiore tipizzazione normativa introdotta nel 2020. In questa prospettiva, la protezione complementare non viene svuotata di contenuto, ma riaffidata alla funzione di bilanciamento del giudice.

3. Il ruolo della giurisprudenza di legittimità

Particolare rilievo assume il richiamo alla giurisprudenza della Corte di cassazione, che ha chiarito come la riforma del 2023 non abbia determinato un arretramento della tutela dei diritti fondamentali dello straniero. Il decreto valorizza l’orientamento secondo cui la protezione complementare può essere riconosciuta quando il radicamento sul territorio nazionale sia tale da rendere l’allontanamento sproporzionato rispetto agli interessi pubblici perseguiti.

In questo senso, il giudice di merito richiama espressamente il principio del bilanciamento e della proporzionalità, già elaborato in epoca anteriore dalla giurisprudenza sulla protezione umanitaria, riaffermando la continuità sistematica tra le diverse stagioni normative.

4. La valutazione del radicamento e della vita privata

Il cuore motivazionale del provvedimento è rappresentato dalla valutazione in concreto della vita privata del ricorrente. Il Tribunale procede a un’analisi complessiva e non frammentata degli indici di integrazione: durata della permanenza in Italia, inserimento lavorativo stabile, autonomia economica, conoscenza della lingua, relazioni sociali e capacità di vivere al di fuori del sistema di accoglienza.

Tali elementi vengono letti come espressione di una vita privata consolidata, la cui lesione, in assenza di esigenze imperative di ordine o sicurezza pubblica, non risulta compatibile con l’articolo 8 della CEDU. Il ritorno nel Paese di origine viene valutato non in astratto, ma in relazione al concreto rischio di sradicamento e di compromissione significativa delle condizioni di vita raggiunte in Italia.

5. Considerazioni conclusive

Il decreto conferma che la protezione complementare, anche dopo il decreto-legge 20 del 2023, rimane uno strumento essenziale di tutela dei diritti fondamentali dello straniero. L’assenza di criteri normativi rigidi non comporta un vuoto di protezione, ma richiede un esercizio responsabile della funzione giurisdizionale, fondato sui parametri costituzionali, convenzionali e giurisprudenziali.

In questa prospettiva, il provvedimento si colloca nel solco di una interpretazione orientata alla continuità e alla razionalità del sistema, riaffermando che l’integrazione effettiva e il radicamento sociale non sono dati marginali, ma elementi centrali nel giudizio di legittimità dell’allontanamento dello straniero dal territorio nazionale.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo