Page de couverture de Complementary Protection and the Right to Private Life_ Bologna Court Judgment of 12 December 2025, General Register No. 13822 of 2025

Complementary Protection and the Right to Private Life_ Bologna Court Judgment of 12 December 2025, General Register No. 13822 of 2025

Complementary Protection and the Right to Private Life_ Bologna Court Judgment of 12 December 2025, General Register No. 13822 of 2025

Écouter gratuitement

Voir les détails du balado

À propos de cet audio

 Complementary Protection and the Right to Private Life: Bologna Court Judgment of 12 December 2025, General Register No. 13822 of 2025 Good morning, I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this is a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. In this episode, we examine a particularly significant judgment delivered by the Tribunale Ordinario di Bologna on 12 December 2025, entered under General Register number 13822 of 2025, which addresses in a clear and structured manner the issue of complementary protection based on the right to respect for private and family life, pursuant to Article 19 of the Italian Consolidated Immigration Act. The case concerns a foreign national who has been living in Italy for many years and has built a life that is now firmly rooted in the country. The police authority had rejected the application for complementary protection, relying on the negative opinion of the Territorial Commission and considering the level of social integration to be insufficiently demonstrated. The Bologna Court, by its decision of 12 December 2025, upheld the appeal and reaffirmed legal principles that should by now be well established, yet continue to be disregarded in administrative practice. First and foremost, the Court clarified that complementary protection does not require proof of a risk of persecution or of inhuman or degrading treatment. The core of the assessment lies elsewhere: it requires verification of whether removal from the national territory would result in a concrete violation of the right to private and family life. This right is not limited to family ties in a strict sense, but encompasses the full range of social, emotional, and working relationships that a person has developed over time. In the case at hand, the Court placed significant weight on very concrete factual elements: long-term residence in Italy, the stable presence of the family unit, the children’s school attendance, employment activity—even if characterised by seasonal discontinuity—and housing autonomy. Taken together, these factors outline a genuine and structured life project, which cannot be disregarded on the basis of abstract or purely formal assessments. A central aspect of the judgment concerns the principle of proportionality. The Bologna Court recalled that the removal of a person who is already integrated into the host society may be justified only where there are concrete and current reasons relating to national security or public order. In the absence of such reasons, uprooting the individual from the social and personal context built in Italy amounts to an unjustified interference with fundamental rights, contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision also addresses the notion of integration, clarifying that it must not be understood as an ideal or total achievement. The law does not require full, irreversible, or definitive integration. It is sufficient to demonstrate an appreciable effort to integrate into Italian society, through employment, participation in family and social life, and the establishment of stable relationships. This is a realistic interpretation, consistent with the very purpose of complementary protection, which is designed to safeguard concrete human situations rather than theoretical models. Of particular importance is the reference to the transitional legal regime. The Court reiterated that, since the application had been submitted before the entry into force of the so-called Cutro Decree, the previous legal framework continues to apply. As a result, the applicant is entitled to a residence permit with a two-year duration, allowing employment, renewable, and convertible into a work-related residence permit. This aspect is often overlooked in administrative practice, yet it is decisive for the everyday lives of those concerned. The Bologna Court judgment of 12 December 2025, General Register number 13822 of 2025, fits within an already consolidated line of case law and confirms that complementary protection is not a discretionary concession by the administration, but a genuine subjective right whenever the legal requirements are met. Explaining and disseminating these decisions is essential, because only through the correct application of the law and a proper use of case law can a fair balance be ensured between the exercise of state authority and the effective protection of fundamental rights. Thank you for listening, and see you in the next episode of Immigration Law.
Pas encore de commentaire