Residence Permits, Criminal Convictions, and Integration: Work Is Not Enough TAR Marche, judgment of December 16, 2025, general register number 684 of 2025

 Residence Permits, Criminal Convictions, and Integration: Work Is Not Enough

TAR Marche, judgment of December 16, 2025, general register number 684 of 2025

The judgment of the Regional Administrative Court for the Marche Region (TAR Marche), Second Section, issued on December 16, 2025, in the proceedings entered under general register number 684 of 2025, has been published on Calameo. The decision addresses a matter of particular relevance in immigration law: the relationship between work-based integration, criminal convictions, and the refusal of a residence permit for employment purposes.

The full text of the judgment is available at the following link:
👉 Calameo publication: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f468fd0c9ded
Direct link: https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f468fd0c9ded

The case

The dispute arose from the refusal by the Police Headquarters to issue a residence permit for work to a foreign national whose EU long-term residence permit had previously been revoked. During the administrative proceedings, a criminal conviction intervened, following a plea agreement, for offenses involving domestic abuse and personal injury.

Despite the existence of an employment relationship and the alleged presence of family ties in Italy, the Administration denied the residence permit on the grounds that the applicant posed a risk to public safety, deemed incompatible with the issuance of a residence title.

The principle affirmed by the Court

In its judgment of December 16, 2025, the TAR Marche dismissed the appeal and clearly affirmed that integration cannot be reduced to employment alone. While work is a relevant factor in assessing integration, it is not sufficient in itself to override a finding of social dangerousness, particularly where the criminal conduct affects fundamental interests protected by the legal order, such as personal integrity and family relations.

The Court emphasized that integration must be assessed in a substantive and comprehensive manner, including respect for the social and cultural values of the host country. In this context, conduct within the private and family sphere assumes full legal relevance, especially when the criminal acts occurred precisely within that sphere.

Prohibition of automatism and administrative discretion

Of particular importance is the Court’s interpretation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Italian Immigration Consolidated Act. The TAR reiterated that the prohibition of automatic decisions does not translate into a subjective right to obtain a residence permit. The Administration is required to conduct a balancing assessment between the foreign national’s interest in remaining in the country and the community’s interest in public safety. Such an assessment may legitimately result in a refusal.

The presence of family ties is not, in itself, decisive unless those ties fall within the strictly defined categories established by law, nor can they operate as a “shield” against conduct considered to be of serious social concern.

The nature of Article 9, paragraph 9, of the Immigration Consolidated Act

The judgment also provides a clear clarification regarding Article 9, paragraph 9, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998. The possibility of issuing a different type of residence permit after the revocation of an EU long-term residence permit is characterized as a discretionary power of the Administration, not an obligation. The exercise of that power remains subject to verification of all statutory requirements, including the absence of any risk to public safety.

Concluding remarks

The decision of the TAR Marche, judgment of December 16, 2025, general register number 684 of 2025, fits within a line of case law that unequivocally reaffirms a principle often overlooked in public debate: work is not an automatic shield in immigration law. Integration is not merely an economic fact, but a complex process that entails responsibility, compliance with the rules, and adherence to the fundamental values of the legal system.

The full publication of the judgment on Calameo allows legal practitioners, scholars, and professionals in the field of immigration law to examine the decision directly and to fully appreciate its systemic implications.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo