Communiqué de presse – Publication de nouveaux épisodes du podcast « Droit de l’immigration »
De nouveaux épisodes du podcast « Droit de l’immigration » ont été publiés, consacrés à une question d’une grande importance pratique et juridique : le lien entre les antécédents pénaux et le renouvellement du titre de séjour, ainsi que les limites du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l’administration.
Ces épisodes s’inspirent d’une décision récente de la juridiction administrative et abordent, dans un langage clair mais juridiquement rigoureux, une problématique centrale de la pratique des préfectures de police et du contentieux en matière d’immigration : l’impossibilité de refuser un titre de séjour sur la base d’automatismes, en l’absence d’une évaluation concrète, actuelle et individualisée de la prétendue dangerosité sociale de la personne concernée.
Le contenu a été publié en plusieurs langues, dans le but de toucher un public large, comprenant notamment des ressortissants étrangers, des professionnels du droit et des chercheurs dans ce domaine.
Le podcast « Droit de l’immigration » poursuit ainsi son travail de diffusion juridique, avec l’objectif de rendre accessibles les principes fondamentaux de la matière sans renoncer à la rigueur technique ni à l’analyse critique de la pratique administrative.
Comunicato – Pubblicazione nuovi episodi del podcast “Diritto dell’Immigrazione”
Sono stati pubblicati nuovi episodi del podcast “Diritto dell’Immigrazione”, dedicati a un tema di particolare rilevanza pratica e giuridica: il rapporto tra precedenti penali e rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno, nonché i limiti della discrezionalità amministrativa.
Gli episodi prendono spunto da una recente decisione della giurisprudenza amministrativa e affrontano, con linguaggio chiaro ma rigoroso, una questione centrale nella prassi delle Questure e nel contenzioso in materia di immigrazione: l’impossibilità di fondare il diniego del titolo di soggiorno su automatismi, in assenza di una valutazione concreta, attuale e individualizzata della presunta pericolosità sociale.
Il contenuto è stato pubblicato in più lingue, con l’obiettivo di raggiungere un pubblico ampio, inclusi cittadini stranieri, operatori del diritto e studiosi della materia.
Il podcast “Diritto dell’Immigrazione” prosegue così nel suo percorso di divulgazione giuridica, con l’obiettivo di rendere accessibili i principi fondamentali della materia, senza rinunciare al rigore tecnico e al confronto critico con la prassi amministrativa.
Italy Revokes Citizenship Obtained with False Documents: A Clear Signal from the Council of State
A recent opinion issued by the Consiglio di Stato sends a strong and unmistakable message: Italian citizenship cannot rest on false foundations, and the passage of time does not protect those who obtained it through irregular documentation.
The case examined by the Council of State concerned a foreign national who was granted Italian citizenship in 2017. Several years later, the authorities discovered that the birth certificate and criminal record submitted with the application were false. Based on this finding, the administration annulled the decree granting citizenship, exercising its power of self-review.
The individual challenged the decision, arguing that too much time had passed and that the annulment violated principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation. He also claimed to have acted in good faith, maintaining that he was not personally responsible for the falsification of the documents.
The Council of State rejected these arguments and reaffirmed a strict but consistent approach. When a favorable administrative act is obtained on the basis of false documents, no legitimate expectation can arise. Time does not heal an illegality that affects the very foundation of the decision. In such cases, the public interest in restoring legality is inherent and does not require additional justification.
One of the most significant aspects of the ruling is the clear statement that it makes no difference whether the falsity is material or ideological, nor whether criminal responsibility can be established. What matters is that the administration was misled and that the decision was adopted on the basis of documents that were objectively untrue.
The Council of State also addressed procedural guarantees, holding that prior notice of the initiation of the annulment procedure may be omitted when the participation of the individual could not realistically change the outcome. Where the falsity of the documents is established and uncontested in its factual core, procedural participation would be purely formal.
Beyond the individual case, the decision has broader implications. It reinforces a line of jurisprudence that places legality above the mere stability of administrative acts, even when those acts concern a status as significant as citizenship. Italian nationality, the ruling makes clear, is not untouchable if its grant was vitiated at the outset.
For applicants and practitioners alike, the message is straightforward. Accuracy and authenticity of documentation are not secondary formalities but essential conditions. Citizenship obtained through false premises remains vulnerable, even many years later.
Pubblicati nuovi episodi del podcast “Diritto dell’Immigrazione” in più lingue
Sono online nuovi episodi del podcast Diritto dell’Immigrazione, dedicati al tema dell’autorizzazione al rientro in Italia dopo l’espulsione, alla luce del parere del Consiglio di Stato reso nel dicembre 2025.
Il contenuto analizza in modo chiaro e rigoroso i limiti giuridici del rientro nel territorio nazionale dopo un provvedimento di espulsione, il carattere discrezionale dell’autorizzazione amministrativa e il ruolo del ricorso straordinario al Presidente della Repubblica. Un tema centrale per operatori del diritto, cittadini stranieri e per chi si occupa di immigrazione e diritto amministrativo.
Gli episodi sono stati pubblicati in più lingue, per raggiungere un pubblico internazionale:
Il podcast Diritto dell’Immigrazione continua così il suo lavoro di divulgazione giuridica, offrendo analisi fondate su atti ufficiali e orientamenti giurisprudenziali, con un linguaggio accessibile ma tecnicamente corretto.
Gli episodi sono disponibili su Spreaker e sulle principali piattaforme di ascolto.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo Podcast Diritto dell’Immigrazione
Revoca della cittadinanza italiana e falsità documentale: il potere di autotutela tra legalità e affidamento
Abstract Il contributo analizza il parere reso dalla Prima Sezione del Consiglio di Stato nell’adunanza del 4 dicembre 2025, relativo all’affare numero 669 del 2023, concernente l’annullamento in autotutela di un decreto di concessione della cittadinanza italiana ottenuto sulla base di documentazione risultata falsa. L’analisi si concentra sui presupposti applicativi dell’articolo 21-nonies della legge n. 241 del 1990, sui limiti del legittimo affidamento e sul rapporto tra falsità documentale e stabilità dello status civitatis.
1. Inquadramento della questione La cittadinanza italiana, pur rappresentando il punto di approdo di un procedimento amministrativo, non è sottratta ai principi generali dell’azione amministrativa. In particolare, essa resta esposta al potere di autotutela dell’Amministrazione quando emerga che il provvedimento concessorio sia stato adottato sulla base di una falsa rappresentazione dei presupposti di fatto. Il parere in esame si inserisce in un filone giurisprudenziale volto a riaffermare la centralità del principio di legalità anche a fronte di posizioni soggettive consolidate nel tempo.
2. I fatti essenziali dell’affare Nel caso esaminato, il decreto di concessione della cittadinanza, adottato nel 2017, è stato successivamente annullato a seguito dell’accertamento della falsità dei certificati di nascita e del certificato penale prodotti dal richiedente. A distanza di anni, l’Amministrazione ha ritenuto insanabilmente viziata l’istruttoria originaria, procedendo al ritiro del provvedimento. Il ricorrente ha invocato il decorso del tempo, la buona fede e l’asserita violazione delle garanzie partecipative, proponendo ricorso straordinario al Presidente della Repubblica.
3. L’applicazione dell’art. 21-nonies l. 241/1990 Il Consiglio di Stato chiarisce che il limite temporale all’esercizio dell’autotutela non opera quando l’illegittimità del provvedimento derivi da una falsa rappresentazione dei fatti imputabile al destinatario. In tali ipotesi, il decorso del tempo non consolida la posizione soggettiva, poiché nessun affidamento meritevole di tutela può sorgere da un vantaggio conseguito mediante documentazione falsa. La valutazione sull’interesse pubblico risulta, in questi casi, intrinseca alla necessità di rimuovere un atto viziato alla radice.
4. Falsità documentale e irrilevanza della distinzione materiale/ideologica Particolarmente significativo è il passaggio in cui il Consiglio di Stato esclude rilevanza alla distinzione tra falsità materiale e falsità ideologica, nonché all’eventuale assenza di responsabilità penale del richiedente. Ciò che assume rilievo decisivo è l’oggettiva non veridicità dei documenti posti a fondamento del provvedimento favorevole, idonea a compromettere l’intero procedimento amministrativo.
5. Garanzie partecipative e comunicazione di avvio del procedimento La decisione affronta anche il tema delle garanzie procedimentali, affermando che la comunicazione di avvio del procedimento può essere omessa quando la partecipazione del privato non sia in grado di incidere sull’esito finale. In presenza di una falsità documentale accertata e non contestata nel suo dato oggettivo, l’apporto partecipativo non potrebbe condurre a una diversa determinazione dell’Amministrazione.
6. Considerazioni conclusive Il parere in commento conferma un orientamento rigoroso in materia di cittadinanza, riaffermando che lo status civitatis non può fondarsi su presupposti falsi e che la stabilità del rapporto giuridico è subordinata alla legittimità originaria del provvedimento. La pronuncia assume rilievo sistemico, poiché rafforza l’idea che l’integrazione giuridica dello straniero passi anche attraverso il rispetto delle regole procedimentali e della veridicità documentale, senza spazi per sanatorie di fatto fondate sul mero decorso del tempo.
Dichiarazione di trasparenza sulle fonti: Il presente contributo si basa esclusivamente sull’analisi del testo ufficiale del parere del Consiglio di Stato, pubblicato nella versione integrale indicata sopra. Non sono state elaborate massime né parafrasi del principio di diritto diverse da quanto desumibile direttamente dalla motivazione del provvedimento.
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
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.
