Title: Italy: Court rules residence permit cannot be denied for bureaucratic omission in posted worker case
A recent decision by the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Marche is drawing attention among immigration law practitioners, offering a clear message to public authorities: administrative formalities cannot override the substantive reality of lawful employment.
In its judgment of April 2, 2026, concerning general register number 454 of 2025, the Court annulled a refusal issued by the Police Headquarters against a foreign worker legally employed in Italy under a company posting scheme.
The case centered on the renewal of a residence permit for a non-EU worker who had entered Italy to perform highly skilled work. Over time, the employment relationship had not only continued but had evolved into a permanent contract, demonstrating clear and stable integration into the Italian labor market.
Despite this, the administration rejected the renewal application on a strictly formal ground: the absence of an extension of the work authorization issued by the Immigration Single Desk.
The Court took a different view.
In a decision grounded in both administrative law principles and practical reasoning, the Tribunal held that such a refusal was unlawful. The missing document, the Court noted, was not only external to the worker’s control but could also have been obtained within the administrative system itself.
More importantly, the worker’s position was substantively regular. He had maintained continuous employment with the same company, held a permanent contract, remained within the maximum five-year posting period, and presented no concerns related to public security or legal compliance.
Against this background, the Court emphasized that administrative authorities cannot rely on formal deficiencies when the essential legal conditions are clearly met. The ruling highlights a broader obligation on public bodies to act in accordance with principles of cooperation and administrative efficiency, rather than shifting the burden of procedural gaps onto individuals.
The judgment also addresses a recurring issue in administrative litigation.
During the proceedings, the authorities attempted to introduce new reasons to justify the refusal, including doubts about the worker’s qualifications. The Tribunal firmly rejected this approach, reiterating that the legality of an administrative act must be assessed based on its original reasoning. Post hoc justifications are not admissible.
As a result, the Court upheld the appeal, annulled the contested decision, and ordered the administration to issue the residence permit.
This ruling is likely to have broader implications.
It reinforces a substantive approach to immigration law, where stable employment and lawful presence carry decisive weight. At the same time, it sends a clear signal to administrative authorities: inefficiencies or delays within the system cannot be used to deny rights to individuals who are otherwise fully compliant.
The full judgment is available here:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775c3fae5c6fc91
Fabio Loscerbo, Attorney at Law
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
