Complementary Protection after Decree-Law No. 20/2023: Jurisprudential Continuity and the Protection of Private and Family Life in Recent Merits Case Law

 Complementary Protection after Decree-Law No. 20/2023: Jurisprudential Continuity and the Protection of Private and Family Life in Recent Merits Case Law

---

Abstract

This article examines a recent decision issued by an Ordinary Court, Specialized Section for Immigration, International Protection and the Free Movement of European Union Citizens, which recognized the right to the issuance of a residence permit for complementary protection pursuant to Article 19, paragraphs 1 and 1.1, of Legislative Decree No. 286 of 1998. Delivered at the conclusion of proceedings in which the applicant waived claims to “higher” forms of protection, the decision provides an opportunity for a systematic reflection on the legal regime of complementary protection following the amendments introduced by Decree-Law No. 20 of 2023, converted into Law No. 50 of 2023, and on the central role of case law—particularly that of the Court of Cassation—in giving concrete substance to a deliberately flexible statutory clause. The full text of the decision is available in the Calameo publication at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/00807977541b94e1f7da1

---

1. Introduction

Complementary protection today represents one of the most delicate areas of Italian immigration law. It lies at the intersection of the constitutional right to asylum, the international obligations undertaken by the State, and legislative policy choices aimed at controlling migration flows. The decision under review fits squarely within this framework, offering a reasoned reconstruction of the applicable legal regime and, above all, a concrete example of how the criteria developed by national and supranational case law are applied in practice.

2. The Legal Framework after Decree-Law No. 20/2023

The Court begins with a careful survey of the evolution of Article 19 of the Consolidated Immigration Act. Following the 2020 reform, which had codified the criteria for assessing the protection of private and family life, Decree-Law No. 20 of 2023 intervened again, repealing certain portions of paragraph 1.1. This intervention, however, did not eliminate the protection of the foreign national’s right to respect for private and family life, which continues to find its foundation in constitutional and conventional obligations, in particular Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The decision underscores that the current legal framework requires the interpreter to return to jurisprudentially developed assessment criteria, moving beyond the phase of heightened legislative typification introduced in 2020. From this perspective, complementary protection is not deprived of substance but is once again entrusted to the balancing function of the judge.

3. The Role of Supreme Court Case Law

Particular significance is attributed to references to the case law of the Court of Cassation, which has clarified that the 2023 reform did not entail a rollback in the protection of the foreign national’s fundamental rights. The decision embraces the approach according to which complementary protection may be granted where the degree of rooting in the national territory is such that removal would be disproportionate in light of the public interests pursued.

In this regard, the merits court expressly invokes the principles of balancing and proportionality, already developed in earlier case law on humanitarian protection, thereby reaffirming the systematic continuity between different legislative phases.

4. Assessing Rootedness and Private Life

The core of the Court’s reasoning lies in the concrete assessment of the applicant’s private life. The Court undertakes a holistic, non-fragmented analysis of indicators of integration, including the duration of residence in Italy, stable employment, economic self-sufficiency, knowledge of the language, social relationships, and the ability to live independently outside the reception system.

These elements are interpreted as evidence of a consolidated private life, the infringement of which—absent imperative reasons of public order or public security—is incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. Return to the country of origin is assessed not in the abstract, but in relation to the concrete risk of uprooting and of a significant deterioration of the living conditions achieved in Italy.

5. Concluding Remarks

The decision confirms that complementary protection, even after Decree-Law No. 20 of 2023, remains an essential instrument for safeguarding the fundamental rights of foreign nationals. The absence of rigid statutory criteria does not create a protection gap; rather, it calls for a responsible exercise of judicial discretion grounded in constitutional, conventional, and jurisprudential parameters.

From this standpoint, the ruling aligns with an interpretative approach oriented toward continuity and rationality within the legal system, reaffirming that effective integration and social rootedness are not marginal considerations, but central elements in assessing the lawfulness of a foreign national’s removal from the national territory.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

La protezione complementare dopo il decreto-legge 20/2023: continuità giurisprudenziale e tutela della vita privata e familiare nella recente giurisprudenza di merito

 La protezione complementare dopo il decreto-legge 20/2023: continuità giurisprudenziale e tutela della vita privata e familiare nella recente giurisprudenza di merito

---

Abstract

Il contributo esamina un recente decreto reso da un Tribunale ordinario, Sezione specializzata in materia di immigrazione, protezione internazionale e libera circolazione dei cittadini dell’Unione europea, con cui è stato riconosciuto il diritto al rilascio di un permesso di soggiorno per protezione complementare ai sensi dell’articolo 19, commi 1 e 1.1, del decreto legislativo 286 del 1998. Il provvedimento, pronunciato all’esito di un giudizio nel quale il ricorrente ha rinunciato alle forme di protezione “maggiori”, offre lo spunto per una riflessione sistematica sul regime giuridico della protezione complementare dopo le modifiche introdotte dal decreto-legge 20 del 2023, convertito dalla legge 50 del 2023, e sul ruolo centrale della giurisprudenza, in particolare di legittimità, nel riempire di contenuto una clausola normativa volutamente elastica. Il decreto è consultabile integralmente nella pubblicazione Calameo al seguente indirizzo: https://www.calameo.com/books/00807977541b94e1f7da1 

1. Premessa

La protezione complementare rappresenta oggi uno degli snodi più delicati del diritto dell’immigrazione italiano. Essa si colloca in una zona di confine tra il diritto costituzionale d’asilo, gli obblighi internazionali assunti dallo Stato e le scelte di politica legislativa in materia di controllo dei flussi migratori. Il decreto in commento si inserisce in questo contesto, offrendo una ricostruzione argomentata della disciplina vigente e, soprattutto, un esempio di applicazione concreta dei criteri elaborati dalla giurisprudenza nazionale e sovranazionale.

2. Il quadro normativo dopo il decreto-legge 20/2023

Il Tribunale muove da una ricognizione puntuale dell’evoluzione dell’articolo 19 del Testo Unico sull’immigrazione. Dopo la riforma del 2020, che aveva tipizzato i criteri di valutazione della tutela della vita privata e familiare, il decreto-legge 20 del 2023 ha inciso nuovamente sulla disposizione, abrogando alcune parti del comma 1.1. Tale intervento, tuttavia, non ha eliminato la tutela del diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare dello straniero, che continua a trovare fondamento negli obblighi costituzionali e convenzionali, in particolare nell’articolo 8 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo.

Il decreto evidenzia come la disciplina vigente imponga all’interprete un ritorno a criteri di valutazione di matrice giurisprudenziale, superando la fase di maggiore tipizzazione normativa introdotta nel 2020. In questa prospettiva, la protezione complementare non viene svuotata di contenuto, ma riaffidata alla funzione di bilanciamento del giudice.

3. Il ruolo della giurisprudenza di legittimità

Particolare rilievo assume il richiamo alla giurisprudenza della Corte di cassazione, che ha chiarito come la riforma del 2023 non abbia determinato un arretramento della tutela dei diritti fondamentali dello straniero. Il decreto valorizza l’orientamento secondo cui la protezione complementare può essere riconosciuta quando il radicamento sul territorio nazionale sia tale da rendere l’allontanamento sproporzionato rispetto agli interessi pubblici perseguiti.

In questo senso, il giudice di merito richiama espressamente il principio del bilanciamento e della proporzionalità, già elaborato in epoca anteriore dalla giurisprudenza sulla protezione umanitaria, riaffermando la continuità sistematica tra le diverse stagioni normative.

4. La valutazione del radicamento e della vita privata

Il cuore motivazionale del provvedimento è rappresentato dalla valutazione in concreto della vita privata del ricorrente. Il Tribunale procede a un’analisi complessiva e non frammentata degli indici di integrazione: durata della permanenza in Italia, inserimento lavorativo stabile, autonomia economica, conoscenza della lingua, relazioni sociali e capacità di vivere al di fuori del sistema di accoglienza.

Tali elementi vengono letti come espressione di una vita privata consolidata, la cui lesione, in assenza di esigenze imperative di ordine o sicurezza pubblica, non risulta compatibile con l’articolo 8 della CEDU. Il ritorno nel Paese di origine viene valutato non in astratto, ma in relazione al concreto rischio di sradicamento e di compromissione significativa delle condizioni di vita raggiunte in Italia.

5. Considerazioni conclusive

Il decreto conferma che la protezione complementare, anche dopo il decreto-legge 20 del 2023, rimane uno strumento essenziale di tutela dei diritti fondamentali dello straniero. L’assenza di criteri normativi rigidi non comporta un vuoto di protezione, ma richiede un esercizio responsabile della funzione giurisdizionale, fondato sui parametri costituzionali, convenzionali e giurisprudenziali.

In questa prospettiva, il provvedimento si colloca nel solco di una interpretazione orientata alla continuità e alla razionalità del sistema, riaffermando che l’integrazione effettiva e il radicamento sociale non sono dati marginali, ma elementi centrali nel giudizio di legittimità dell’allontanamento dello straniero dal territorio nazionale.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Protección complementaria, derecho de asilo constitucional y tutela de la vida privada y familiar tras el Decreto-ley n.º 20/2023: observaciones a propósito de un decreto del Tribunale di Bologna de 12 de diciembre de 2025 (registro general 8151 de 2024)

 Protección complementaria, derecho de asilo constitucional y tutela de la vida privada y familiar tras el Decreto-ley n.º 20/2023: observaciones a propósito de un decreto del Tribunale di Bologna de 12 de diciembre de 2025 (registro general 8151 de 2024)

---

Resumen
El presente trabajo analiza un decreto reciente dictado por el Tribunale di Bologna el 12 de diciembre de 2025 (registro general 8151 de 2024), que reconoce el derecho a la expedición de un permiso de residencia por protección especial conforme al artículo 19 del Decreto Legislativo n.º 286/1998. La decisión se inserta en el debate abierto por las modificaciones introducidas por el Decreto-ley n.º 20, de 10 de marzo de 2023, convertido en la Ley n.º 50, de 5 de mayo de 2023, y ofrece una reconstrucción sistemática de la protección complementaria como expresión del derecho de asilo constitucionalmente garantizado. Se presta especial atención al papel de la vida privada y familiar, a la función de la evaluación comparativa y a la relación entre las obligaciones constitucionales y las fuentes convencionales, a la luz de la jurisprudencia más reciente de la Corte di Cassazione.

---

1. El marco normativo de la protección complementaria tras 2023

La reforma de 2023 ha incidido profundamente en la estructura del artículo 19 del Texto Único de Inmigración, al derogar las disposiciones que, en la redacción introducida en 2020, identificaban expresamente los criterios relativos a la vida privada y familiar. Esta intervención legislativa ha alimentado, en la práctica administrativa, la idea de una reducción de la protección especial, entendida como una cláusula residual de no devolución en sentido estricto.

El decreto objeto de comentario rechaza de manera clara esta lectura, reconstruyendo el marco vigente como un retorno sustancial al régimen anterior a 2020, en el que la protección humanitaria —hoy protección complementaria— encontraba su fundamento directo en las obligaciones constitucionales e internacionales a las que remiten los artículos 5, apartado 6, y 19 del Decreto Legislativo n.º 286/1998. Según el Tribunal, la supresión de indicadores normativos específicos no implica la eliminación del derecho sustantivo a la protección, que continúa operando como un límite infranqueable a las medidas de expulsión o alejamiento.

---

2. Protección complementaria y derecho de asilo constitucional

Uno de los aspectos más relevantes del decreto reside en el vínculo explícito establecido entre la protección complementaria y el derecho de asilo consagrado en el artículo 10, apartado tercero, de la Constitución italiana. El Tribunal aclara que la protección especial no constituye una concesión discrecional de la Administración, sino una modalidad de realización del derecho de asilo constitucional, entendido como derecho fundamental a un nivel mínimo de dignidad de la vida.

Desde esta perspectiva, la protección complementaria adquiere un alcance más amplio que el estrictamente exigido por el Derecho de la Unión Europea o por la sola Convención Europea de Derechos Humanos. La remisión a las obligaciones constitucionales permite al ordenamiento interno asegurar un nivel de tutela reforzado, no susceptible de ser restringido mediante interpretaciones basadas exclusivamente en parámetros supranacionales más limitados.

---

3. La vida privada y familiar como parámetro central de tutela

El decreto dedica una extensa motivación a la protección de la vida privada y familiar, con referencia al artículo 8 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y a su arraigo en los artículos 2, 3 y 10 de la Constitución. La vida privada no se concibe de forma estática ni exclusivamente familiar, sino como el conjunto de relaciones sociales, laborales y afectivas a través de las cuales la persona desarrolla su identidad.

El Tribunal subraya que la integración no puede reducirse al dato laboral, aunque sea relevante, sino que debe valorarse en su dimensión global y concreta. El alejamiento forzoso de un extranjero que haya arraigado su vida privada en Italia comporta un riesgo de vulnerabilidad cualificada, susceptible de constituir una lesión de los derechos fundamentales, incluso en ausencia de persecuciones o de tratos inhumanos en el país de origen.

---

4. La evaluación comparativa y el principio de proporcionalidad

Un elemento cardinal de la decisión es la evaluación comparativa entre la situación en el país de origen y el grado de integración alcanzado en Italia. El Tribunal se sitúa en la estela de la jurisprudencia consolidada de la Corte de Casación, que exige una apreciación caso por caso, basada en elementos concretos y actuales, orientada al equilibrio entre el interés público en el alejamiento y la protección de los derechos fundamentales.

En coherencia con las resoluciones más recientes de la Corte de Casación, el decreto reitera que no se requiere un itinerario de integración “completo” o definitivo: basta con que se desprendan indicios claros, serios y concordantes de un arraigo efectivo, capaces de hacer desproporcionado el alejamiento. La comparación atenuada se convierte así en el instrumento mediante el cual el juez verifica si el retorno supondría un deterioro significativo de las condiciones de vida privada y familiar, afectando al núcleo esencial de la dignidad humana.

---

5. Alcance sistémico y perspectivas

El decreto del Tribunale di Bologna ofrece una contribución de especial relevancia para la práctica judicial y administrativa. Aclara que la reforma de 2023 no ha vaciado de contenido la protección complementaria, sino que ha confiado al juez la tarea de reconstruir sus parámetros a la luz de los principios constitucionales y convencionales.

El resultado es un modelo de protección no automático, pero riguroso, en el que la integración social adquiere plena relevancia jurídica y la vida privada y familiar se convierte en el eje central del ejercicio de ponderación. En un contexto marcado por las tensiones entre las políticas de control migratorio y la salvaguardia de los derechos fundamentales, la decisión reafirma el papel del juez como garante último de la dignidad de la persona extranjera.

---

Referencia a la publicación
El texto íntegro del decreto del Tribunale di Bologna de 12 de diciembre de 2025 (registro general 8151 de 2024) puede consultarse en la versión publicada en Calameo en el siguiente enlace:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797751346a938fdea

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Protection complémentaire, vie privée et limites du pouvoir d’éloignement : observations à propos de l’arrêt du Tribunal de Bologne du 12 décembre 2025, registre général 13822 de 2025

 Protection complémentaire, vie privée et limites du pouvoir d’éloignement : observations à propos de l’arrêt du Tribunal de Bologne du 12 décembre 2025, registre général 13822 de 2025

Résumé
L’arrêt du Tribunal de Bologne du 12 décembre 2025, registre général 13822 de 2025, constitue une contribution d’une importance particulière à l’évolution jurisprudentielle en matière de protection complémentaire au sens de l’article 19 du décret législatif italien du 25 juillet 1998, numéro 286. La décision précise la portée du droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale en tant que limite substantielle au pouvoir administratif de refus du séjour et d’éloignement, en réaffirmant la nature de cette protection comme un véritable droit subjectif dès lors qu’un enracinement effectif de la personne étrangère sur le territoire national est établi. La présente étude analyse les critères d’évaluation de l’intégration, le principe de proportionnalité ainsi que le régime transitoire applicable aux demandes introduites avant l’entrée en vigueur du décret-loi du 10 mars 2023, numéro 20.

---

1. Le cadre juridique de la protection complémentaire

La protection complémentaire trouve son fondement à l’article 19, paragraphes 1 et 1.1, du texte unique italien sur l’immigration, dans la rédaction issue du décret-loi du 21 octobre 2020, numéro 130, converti avec modifications par la loi du 18 décembre 2020, numéro 173. Cette réforme a considérablement élargi le champ de la protection, en rattachant l’interdiction de refus et d’éloignement non seulement au risque de persécution ou de traitements inhumains ou dégradants, mais également à la sauvegarde du droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale, conformément à l’article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

Dans cette perspective, la protection complémentaire se présente comme un instrument résiduel mais autonome, destiné à couvrir les situations dans lesquelles l’éloignement forcé du territoire national entraînerait une atteinte disproportionnée aux droits fondamentaux de la personne, même en l’absence des conditions requises pour la reconnaissance du statut de réfugié ou de la protection subsidiaire.

---

2. L’affaire tranchée par le Tribunal de Bologne

Dans l’arrêt commenté, le Tribunale Ordinario di Bologna a été appelé à se prononcer sur la légalité d’un refus de protection complémentaire fondé sur une appréciation négative du degré d’intégration sociale de la demanderesse, émise par la Commission territoriale et reprise par l’autorité de police.

La juridiction a reconstitué de manière analytique le parcours de vie de la requérante, en accordant une importance particulière à des éléments tels que la longue durée de séjour en Italie, la stabilité du noyau familial, la scolarisation des enfants, l’activité professionnelle — bien que marquée par des périodes de discontinuité — ainsi que l’autonomie en matière de logement. Ces circonstances ont été examinées globalement, à travers une appréciation d’ensemble et non fragmentaire, apte à restituer la réalité de l’enracinement atteint sur le territoire national.

---

3. Vie privée, intégration et principe de proportionnalité

L’un des aspects les plus significatifs de la décision réside dans l’interprétation large de la notion de vie privée, comprise comme l’ensemble des relations sociales, affectives et professionnelles qui contribuent à façonner l’identité personnelle de l’individu. Dans ce cadre, l’intégration n’est pas conçue comme un résultat idéal ou absolu, mais comme un processus dynamique, démontrable à travers tout effort appréciable d’insertion dans la société italienne.

Le Tribunal se réfère expressément au principe de proportionnalité, en soulignant que l’ingérence de l’État dans la vie privée et familiale de la personne étrangère ne peut être considérée comme légitime que si elle est justifiée par des exigences concrètes et actuelles liées à la sécurité nationale ou à l’ordre public. À défaut de tels motifs, l’éloignement du territoire national constitue une restriction injustifiée des droits fondamentaux, contraire à l’article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et à la ratio même de l’article 19 du texte unique sur l’immigration.

---

4. Régime transitoire et droit applicable

D’une importance particulière est le rappel du régime transitoire prévu à l’article 7 du décret-loi du 10 mars 2023, numéro 20, converti par la loi du 5 mai 2023, numéro 50. Le Tribunal réaffirme que les demandes introduites avant l’entrée en vigueur de ce décret demeurent régies par la législation antérieure, ce qui implique la reconnaissance d’un titre de séjour d’une durée de deux ans, renouvelable et convertible en titre de séjour pour motifs professionnels.

Cette précision revêt une portée systémique, en ce qu’elle s’oppose aux pratiques administratives visant à appliquer rétroactivement des dispositions plus restrictives, en violation des principes de sécurité juridique et de protection de la confiance légitime.

---

5. Observations conclusives

L’arrêt du Tribunal de Bologne du 12 décembre 2025, registre général 13822 de 2025, s’inscrit dans une jurisprudence désormais consolidée et contribue à renforcer la conception de la protection complémentaire comme un droit subjectif plein, susceptible de protection juridictionnelle. La décision confirme que l’évaluation de l’intégration doit être substantielle et individualisée, et que l’administration ne saurait se limiter à des appréciations stéréotypées ou purement formelles.

Le texte intégral de l’arrêt est disponible pour consultation et approfondissement sur Calameo au lien suivant :
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797751165099142b8

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Complementary Protection, Private Life and the Limits of Removal Powers: Notes on the Bologna Court Judgment of 12 December 2025, General Register 13822 of 2025

 Complementary Protection, Private Life and the Limits of Removal Powers: Notes on the Bologna Court Judgment of 12 December 2025, General Register 13822 of 2025

Abstract
The judgment of the Bologna Court of 12 December 2025, General Register 13822 of 2025, represents a significant contribution to the development of case law on complementary protection under Article 19 of Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No. 286. The decision clarifies the scope of the right to respect for private and family life as a substantive limit on the administrative power to refuse residence and order removal, reaffirming the nature of this protection as a subjective right whenever an effective rooting of the foreign national in the national territory is established. This article examines the criteria for assessing integration, the principle of proportionality, and the transitional regime applicable to applications submitted prior to the entry into force of Decree-Law 10 March 2023, No. 20.

---

1. The Legal Framework of Complementary Protection

Complementary protection is grounded in Article 19, paragraphs 1 and 1.1, of the Italian Consolidated Immigration Act, as reformulated by Decree-Law 21 October 2020, No. 130, converted with amendments by Law 18 December 2020, No. 173. This reform significantly expanded the scope of protection by anchoring the prohibition of refusal and removal not only to the risk of persecution or inhuman or degrading treatment, but also to the protection of the right to respect for private and family life, in line with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

From this perspective, complementary protection operates as a residual yet autonomous instrument, designed to capture situations in which forced removal from the national territory would result in a disproportionate violation of fundamental rights, even in the absence of the requirements for refugee status or subsidiary protection.

---

2. The Case Decided by the Bologna Court

In the judgment under review, the Tribunale Ordinario di Bologna was called upon to assess the lawfulness of a refusal of complementary protection based on a negative assessment of the applicant’s level of social integration, expressed by the Territorial Commission and adopted by the police authority.

The Court reconstructed the applicant’s life trajectory in a detailed and analytical manner, attaching particular weight to elements such as long-term residence in Italy, the stability of the family unit, children’s school attendance, employment activity—albeit characterised by periods of discontinuity—and housing autonomy. These circumstances were assessed as a whole, through a comprehensive and non-fragmentary evaluation capable of reflecting the reality of the integration achieved within the national territory.

---

3. Private Life, Integration and the Principle of Proportionality

One of the most significant aspects of the decision lies in the broad interpretation of the notion of private life, understood as the network of social, emotional and professional relationships that contribute to shaping an individual’s personal identity. In this context, integration is not conceived as an ideal or absolute achievement, but rather as a dynamic process, demonstrable through any appreciable effort to participate in Italian social life.

The Court expressly refers to the principle of proportionality, emphasising that State interference with the private and family life of a foreign national may be considered lawful only where justified by concrete and current needs relating to national security or public order. In the absence of such prerequisites, removal from the national territory constitutes an unjustified restriction of fundamental rights, contrary to Article 8 ECHR and to the very rationale of Article 19 of the Consolidated Immigration Act.

---

4. Transitional Regime and Applicable Law

Of particular relevance is the reminder of the transitional regime provided for by Article 7 of Decree-Law 10 March 2023, No. 20, converted by Law 5 May 2023, No. 50. The Court reaffirms that applications submitted prior to the entry into force of that decree remain governed by the previous legal framework, resulting in the recognition of a residence permit with a two-year duration, renewable and convertible into a work-related residence permit.

This clarification has systemic importance, as it counters administrative practices aimed at applying more restrictive rules retroactively, in violation of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations.

---

5. Concluding Remarks

The Bologna Court judgment of 12 December 2025, General Register 13822 of 2025, fits within an already consolidated line of case law and contributes to strengthening the concept of complementary protection as a full subjective right, enforceable before the courts. The decision confirms that the assessment of integration must be substantive and individualised, and that the administration may not rely on stereotypical or purely formal evaluations.

The full text of the judgment is available for consultation and further study on Calameo at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797751165099142b8

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Complementary protection, constitutional right of asylum and protection of private and family life after Decree-Law No. 20/2023: remarks on a decree of the Tribunale di Bologna of 12 December 2025 (general register 8151 of 2024)

 THEME

Complementary protection, constitutional right of asylum and protection of private and family life after Decree-Law No. 20/2023: remarks on a decree of the Tribunale di Bologna of 12 December 2025 (general register 8151 of 2024)

---

Abstract
This article analyses a recent decree issued by the Tribunale di Bologna on 12 December 2025 (general register 8151 of 2024), which recognised the right to a residence permit for special protection pursuant to Article 19 of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998. The decision is situated within the debate triggered by the amendments introduced by Decree-Law No. 20 of 10 March 2023, converted into Law No. 50 of 5 May 2023, and provides a systematic reconstruction of complementary protection as an expression of the constitutionally guaranteed right of asylum. Particular attention is devoted to the role of private and family life, the function of the comparative assessment, and the relationship between constitutional obligations and conventional sources, in the light of the most recent case law of the Corte di Cassazione.

---

1. The regulatory framework of complementary protection after 2023

The 2023 reform profoundly affected the structure of Article 19 of the Consolidated Immigration Act, repealing the provisions which, in the wording introduced in 2020, expressly identified criteria relating to private and family life. This legislative intervention has fuelled, within administrative practice, the idea of a downsizing of special protection, reduced to a residual non-refoulement clause in a strict sense.

The decree under review firmly rejects this approach, reconstructing the current legal framework as a substantial return to the pre-2020 system, in which humanitarian protection—now complementary protection—was directly grounded in the constitutional and international obligations referred to in Articles 5(6) and 19 of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998. According to the Court, the repeal of specific statutory indicators does not entail the elimination of the substantive right to protection, which continues to operate as an insurmountable limit on removal measures.

---

2. Complementary protection and the constitutional right of asylum

One of the most significant aspects of the decree is the explicit link established between complementary protection and the right of asylum enshrined in Article 10(3) of the Italian Constitution. The Court clarifies that special protection is not a discretionary concession by the administration, but rather a form of implementation of the constitutional right of asylum, understood as a fundamental right to a minimum standard of dignified living conditions.

From this perspective, complementary protection acquires a broader scope than that strictly required by European Union law or by the European Convention on Human Rights alone. The reference to constitutional obligations allows the domestic legal order to ensure an enhanced level of protection, which cannot be curtailed through restrictive interpretations based solely on more limited supranational parameters.

---

3. Private and family life as a central parameter of protection

The decree devotes extensive reasoning to the protection of private and family life, referring to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its roots in Articles 2, 3 and 10 of the Constitution. Private life is not conceived in a static or purely family-based sense, but as the ensemble of social, working and affective relationships through which an individual develops his or her personal identity.

The Court stresses that integration cannot be reduced to employment alone, albeit relevant, but must be assessed in its overall and concrete dimension. The forced removal of a foreign national who has rooted his or her private life in Italy entails a risk of qualified vulnerability, capable of constituting an infringement of fundamental rights, even in the absence of persecution or inhuman treatment in the country of origin.

---

4. The comparative assessment and the principle of proportionality

A cornerstone of the decision is the comparative assessment between the situation in the country of origin and the degree of integration achieved in Italy. The Court aligns itself with the settled case law of the Court of Cassation, which requires a case-by-case evaluation based on concrete and current elements, aimed at balancing the public interest in removal against the protection of fundamental rights.

Consistently with the most recent rulings of the Court of Cassation, the decree reiterates that a “completed” or definitive integration pathway is not required: it is sufficient that clear, serious and consistent indicators of effective rootedness emerge, such as to render removal disproportionate. The attenuated comparison thus becomes the instrument through which the judge verifies whether return would result in a significant deterioration of private and family life conditions, affecting the essential core of human dignity.

---

5. Systemic implications and future perspectives

The decree of the Tribunale di Bologna offers a contribution of particular relevance to judicial and administrative practice. It clarifies that the 2023 reform did not deprive complementary protection of its substance, but rather entrusted the judiciary with the task of reconstructing its parameters in the light of constitutional and conventional principles.

The outcome is a model of protection that is not automatic but rigorous, in which social integration assumes full legal relevance and private and family life becomes the focal point of the balancing exercise. In a context marked by tensions between migration control policies and the safeguarding of fundamental rights, the decision reaffirms the role of the judiciary as the ultimate guarantor of the dignity of the foreign person.

---

Reference to the publication
The full text of the decree of the Tribunale di Bologna of 12 December 2025 (general register 8151 of 2024) is available in the version published on Calameo at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797751346a938fdea

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Mbrojtja plotësuese, jeta private dhe kufijtë e pushtetit të largimit: shënime mbi vendimin e Gjykatës së Bolonjës të datës 12 dhjetor 2025, regjistri i përgjithshëm 13822 i vitit 2025

 Mbrojtja plotësuese, jeta private dhe kufijtë e pushtetit të largimit: shënime mbi vendimin e Gjykatës së Bolonjës të datës 12 dhjetor 2025, regjistri i përgjithshëm 13822 i vitit 2025

Abstrakt
Vendimi i Gjykatës së Bolonjës i datës 12 dhjetor 2025, regjistri i përgjithshëm 13822 i vitit 2025, përbën një kontribut me rëndësi të veçantë në zhvillimin e jurisprudencës mbi mbrojtjen plotësuese sipas nenit 19 të dekretit legjislativ italian të 25 korrikut 1998, numër 286. Vendimi sqaron shtrirjen e së drejtës për respektimin e jetës private dhe familjare si kufi thelbësor i pushtetit administrativ për refuzim dhe largim, duke riafirmuar natyrën e kësaj mbrojtjeje si e drejtë subjektive, kur konstatohet një rrënjosje efektive e shtetasit të huaj në territorin kombëtar. Analiza ndalet te kriteret e vlerësimit të integrimit, parimi i proporcionalitetit dhe regjimi kalimtar i zbatueshëm për kërkesat e paraqitura përpara hyrjes në fuqi të dekretit-ligj të 10 marsit 2023, numër 20.

---

1. Kuadri normativ i mbrojtjes plotësuese

Mbrojtja plotësuese gjen bazën e saj në nenin 19, paragrafët 1 dhe 1.1, të Tekstit Unik për Imigracionin, siç është riformuluar nga dekreti-ligj i 21 tetorit 2020, numër 130, i konvertuar me ndryshime nga ligji i 18 dhjetorit 2020, numër 173. Kjo ndërhyrje ka zgjeruar ndjeshëm fushën e mbrojtjes, duke e ankoruar ndalimin e refuzimit dhe të dëbimit jo vetëm te rreziku i përndjekjes apo i trajtimeve çnjerëzore ose poshtëruese, por edhe te mbrojtja e së drejtës për respektimin e jetës private dhe familjare, në përputhje me nenin 8 të Konventës Evropiane për të Drejtat e Njeriut.

Në këtë këndvështrim, mbrojtja plotësuese paraqitet si instrument rezidual, por autonom, i destinuar të përfshijë situata në të cilat largimi i detyruar nga territori kombëtar do të sillte një cenim joproporcional të të drejtave themelore të personit, edhe në mungesë të kushteve për njohjen e statusit të refugjatit ose të mbrojtjes dytësore.

---

2. Çështja e shqyrtuar nga Gjykata e Bolonjës

Me vendimin në koment, Tribunale Ordinario di Bologna u thirr të vlerësonte ligjshmërinë e një refuzimi të mbrojtjes plotësuese, të bazuar në një vlerësim negativ mbi shkallën e integrimit shoqëror të kërkueses, të shprehur nga Komisioni Territorial dhe të përvetësuar nga autoriteti i kuesturës.

Kolegji rindërtoi në mënyrë analitike rrugëtimin jetësor të ankueses, duke vlerësuar elemente si qëndrimi i gjatë në Itali, stabiliteti i bërthamës familjare, ndjekja e shkollës nga fëmijët, aktiviteti i punës—edhe pse i karakterizuar nga ndërprerje—si dhe autonomia banesore. Këto rrethana u konsideruan në tërësinë e tyre, përmes një vlerësimi gjithëpërfshirës dhe jo fragmentar, i aftë të pasqyrojë realitetin e rrënjosjes së arritur në territorin kombëtar.

---

3. Jeta private, integrimi dhe parimi i proporcionalitetit

Një nga aspektet më domethënëse të vendimit qëndron në interpretimin e gjerë të nocionit të jetës private, e kuptuar si rrjet marrëdhëniesh shoqërore, emocionale dhe profesionale që kontribuojnë në formësimin e identitetit personal të individit. Në këtë kuptim, integrimi nuk konceptohet si një arritje ideale apo absolute, por si një proces dinamik, i provueshëm përmes çdo përpjekjeje të vlerësueshme për t’u përfshirë në realitetin shoqëror italian.

Gjykata i referohet shprehimisht parimit të proporcionalitetit, duke theksuar se ndërhyrja e shtetit në jetën private dhe familjare të të huajit mund të konsiderohet e ligjshme vetëm në prani të nevojave konkrete dhe aktuale të sigurisë kombëtare ose të rendit publik. Në mungesë të këtyre parakushteve, largimi nga territori kombëtar përbën një kufizim të pajustifikuar të të drejtave themelore, në kundërshtim me nenin 8 të KEDNJ-së dhe me vetë qëllimin e nenit 19 të Tekstit Unik për Imigracionin.

---

4. Regjimi kalimtar dhe legjislacioni i zbatueshëm

Me rëndësi të veçantë është rikujtimi i regjimit kalimtar të parashikuar nga neni 7 i dekretit-ligj të 10 marsit 2023, numër 20, i konvertuar nga ligji i 5 majit 2023, numër 50. Gjykata riafirmon se, për kërkesat e paraqitura përpara hyrjes në fuqi të këtij dekreti, vazhdon të zbatohet legjislacioni i mëparshëm, me pasojë njohjen e një leje qëndrimi me kohëzgjatje dyvjeçare, të rinovueshme dhe të konvertueshme në leje qëndrimi për arsye pune.

Ky sqarim ka vlerë sistematike, pasi kundërshton praktika administrative që synojnë zbatimin prapaveprues të rregullave më kufizuese, në shkelje të parimeve të sigurisë juridike dhe të mbrojtjes së besimit të ligjshëm.

---

5. Përfundime

Vendimi i Gjykatës së Bolonjës i datës 12 dhjetor 2025, regjistri i përgjithshëm 13822 i vitit 2025, përfshihet në një orientim jurisprudencial tashmë të konsoliduar dhe kontribuon në forcimin e konceptit të mbrojtjes plotësuese si e drejtë subjektive e plotë, e ushtrueshme në rrugë gjyqësore. Vendimi konfirmon se vlerësimi i integrimit duhet të jetë thelbësor dhe i individualizuar dhe se administrata nuk mund të kufizohet në vlerësime stereotipe ose thjesht formale.

Publikimi integral i vendimit është i disponueshëm në Calameo për konsultim dhe thellim në linkun vijues:
https://www.calameo.com/books/0080797751165099142b8

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo