Drug-Related Convictions and the Conversion of Residence Permits for Work: The Scope of Mandatory Refusal
The judgment of the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna, First Section, number 01561 of 2025, delivered in December 2025, provides an important opportunity to revisit a central and still highly controversial issue in immigration law: the impact of criminal convictions for drug-related offences on the possibility of renewing or converting a residence permit for subordinate employment.
The full decision is published and available at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797757982a2aef314
The ruling follows a well-established line of case law, while at the same time clearly defining its operational boundaries by distinguishing between situations of automatic legal impediment and the limited residual areas of administrative discretion.
The dispute arose from the refusal issued by the Questura in response to an application for the renewal and conversion of a residence permit for family reasons into a permit for subordinate employment. The refusal was based on the existence of a final criminal conviction for possession of narcotic substances with intent to distribute, imposed pursuant to Article 73, paragraph 1-bis, of Presidential Decree 309 of 1990. The defence challenged the automatic nature of the refusal, arguing that the administration should have carried out an overall assessment of the applicant’s personal, employment and social circumstances.
The Administrative Court, however, first clarified the correct legal framework applicable to the case, excluding the relevance of Article 9 of the Consolidated Immigration Act concerning EU long-term residence permits, and instead referring the matter to Articles 4, paragraph 3, and 5 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 25 July 1998. Within this framework, convictions for serious drug-related offences constitute an automatic ground preventing the issuance or conversion of a residence permit for work purposes.
The judgment reiterates that, in the presence of such convictions, neither the suspension of the sentence, nor the granting of mitigating circumstances, nor the passage of time since the commission of the offence is legally relevant. In these situations, the administration does not enjoy a broad discretionary power but is legally bound to refuse the requested residence permit.
A key part of the decision concerns the sole exception to this automatic mechanism: the existence of effective and current family ties with persons lawfully residing in Italy. Only where a genuine family unit is proven in concrete terms, and not merely formally declared, does Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Consolidated Immigration Act require the administration to carry out a balancing exercise between the public interest in security and the protection of family life, also in light of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the case examined, the Court found that this requirement was not met, emphasising the absence of effective cohabitation and the lack of evidence of an existing family nucleus. Consequently, the refusal was confirmed as legally mandatory.
The decision invites a broader reflection on the relationship between social integration and statutory automatic mechanisms in immigration law. Many foreign nationals believe that a conviction which has already been “served” or which dates back many years no longer affects their administrative status. The judgment under review demonstrates, instead, that in the field of residence permits for subordinate employment certain convictions continue to operate as insurmountable legal barriers, regardless of subsequent employment history or the degree of social integration achieved.
From this perspective, the ruling of the Emilia-Romagna Regional Administrative Court represents a clear statement of the current state of the law, offering practitioners and legal operators a precise framework within which administrative discretion may be invoked, and identifying those cases in which such discretion is legally excluded.
Podcasts related to the judgment
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
