Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit: Late Filing, Administrative Review, and the Limits of Discretion in the Case Law of the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court

 

Conversion of a Seasonal Residence Permit: Late Filing, Administrative Review, and the Limits of Discretion in the Case Law of the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court

The conversion of a residence permit from seasonal work to subordinate employment continues to represent one of the most contentious areas in the relationship between public administration and foreign nationals. On this issue, a particularly significant ruling was delivered by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on December 22, 2025, in general registry case number 1710 of 2025, offering systemic clarifications with concrete implications for the practice of Immigration One-Stop Shops.

The case arose from a refusal issued by the Prefecture of Modena against a request for conversion submitted by a seasonal worker. The denial was based on three recurring grounds: 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 progressively dismantles this approach, reaffirming principles which, although not new, are frequently disregarded in everyday administrative practice.

From a procedural standpoint, the judgment strongly emphasizes end-procedural adversarial participation, clarifying that non-compliance with Article 10-bis of Law No. 241 of 1990 cannot be dismissed as a merely formal defect. The failure to assess the applicant’s observations directly affects the lawfulness of the final decision, as it compromises the administrative investigation and empties the duty to state reasons of its substance. In this context, the Court expressly excludes the possibility of curing the defect under Article 21-octies where the dialogue with the interested party is essential to the decision-making process.

As for the requirement of 39 working days, the Court reiterates that, in seasonal agricultural work, verification must be carried out on the basis of days actually worked and corresponding social security contributions. In the case at hand, the documentation demonstrated that the minimum threshold had been exceeded, while the Administration had limited itself to a generic assertion unsupported by any factual verification. This results in an additional defect of inadequate investigation and reasoning.

The most systemically relevant aspect of the decision concerns the alleged late filing of the conversion request. The Court reaffirms that Article 24, paragraph 10, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act does not establish any mandatory deadline and that the expiration of the seasonal permit does not, in itself, constitute an automatic bar to conversion. The decisive criterion is that of reasonableness, which must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In the present case, the continuity of the applicant’s employment allowed the Court to overcome even a significant delay, excluding any evasive or abusive intent.

The judgment concludes by upholding the appeal and ordering the Administration to reassess the case within sixty days. The message is clear and difficult to circumvent: the administrative management of immigration cannot be based on automatic refusals, restrictive interpretations lacking a statutory basis, or superficial investigations, but must instead engage with the facts, the work actually performed, and the procedural guarantees provided by law.

The full text of the decision is available for consultation and study at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775a789a666320a

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo