Criminal Records Are Not Enough: Bologna Administrative Court Strikes Down Automatic Residence Permit Refusal

 Criminal Records Are Not Enough: Bologna Administrative Court Strikes Down Automatic Residence Permit Refusal

A recent decision by the Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna, based in Bologna, has once again drawn a clear line between lawful discretion and unlawful automatism in Italian immigration law. At the center of the ruling is a practice still widely used by immigration authorities: refusing or not renewing a residence permit solely on the basis of a foreign national’s criminal record.

The Court’s message is straightforward. Criminal convictions, taken alone, cannot justify the refusal of a residence permit. Public authorities are required to assess each case individually, taking into account the person’s current situation, rather than relying on past conduct as an automatic barrier.

This principle is rooted in Italian law, specifically Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Consolidated Immigration Act. That provision obliges the administration to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the foreign national’s circumstances, balancing negative elements—such as criminal convictions—with positive factors including family life, employment history, social integration, and the time elapsed since the offences were committed.

In the case examined by the Bologna Administrative Court, the refusal decision was found to be unlawfully reasoned. The authority had merely listed the applicant’s criminal record, without explaining why those convictions still indicated a present and actual threat to public order. There was no real assessment of the individual’s personal development, reintegration into society, or private and family life. As a result, the Court annulled the refusal and sent the case back to the administration for a new and lawful examination.

From a broader perspective, the ruling confirms a trend that is increasingly evident in administrative case law. Immigration authorities do have discretion, but that discretion is not unlimited. When decisions affect fundamental aspects of a person’s life—such as the right to reside legally, work, and maintain family ties—administrative power must be exercised with care, proportionality, and proper reasoning.

The Bologna decision also carries an important practical message. Criminal records are a factor in the assessment, not the conclusion itself. Authorities must demonstrate, through a reasoned analysis, why those records remain relevant today and why they outweigh all other elements in the individual’s favor. Without such an analysis, the refusal of a residence permit cannot stand.

The full publication, including the court decision and legal analysis, is available on Calaméo at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f4e8338cb9e5
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775f4e8338cb9e5

Ultimately, this ruling reinforces a key principle of immigration law: there are no shortcuts. Automatic decisions based on past convictions are incompatible with a legal system that requires individualized assessments and respect for proportionality. For both practitioners and foreign nationals, the message is clear—each case must be judged on its own merits.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo