العنوان: إشارة شنغن وتصريح الإقامة

 

Conversion du titre de séjour : l’avis n’est pas décisif et l’intégration n’est pas toujours requis

https://ift.tt/Dyzi6Mm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_EFI4Z7K4A

Conversión del permiso de residencia: el dictamen no es decisivo y la integración no siempre es nec

https://ift.tt/gjuCTDV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUE5c9n4uIE

Ascolta "Alerta en el SIS y anulación del visado el Tribunal Administrativo de Roma excluye el automatismo" su Spreaker.

العنوان: التنبيه في نظام معلومات شنغن SIS لا يؤدي تلقائيًا إلى إلغاء التأشيرة: قرار مهم للمحكمة الإدارية الإيطالية

 العنوان: التنبيه في نظام معلومات شنغن SIS لا يؤدي تلقائيًا إلى إلغاء التأشيرة: قرار مهم للمحكمة الإدارية الإيطالية

أصدرت المحكمة الإدارية الإيطالية مؤخرًا قرارًا مهمًا يوضح الآثار القانونية للتنبيهات المدرجة في نظام معلومات شنغن (SIS) على الإجراءات المتعلقة بالتأشيرات وتصاريح الإقامة.

وقد صدر الحكم عن المحكمة الإدارية الإقليمية في لاتسيو (TAR Lazio)، الدائرة الخامسة كواتر، الحكم رقم 2728 لسنة 2026، حيث تناولت المحكمة العلاقة بين وجود تنبيه في نظام SIS وسلطة الإدارة في إلغاء تأشيرة سبق إصدارها.

النص الكامل للحكم متاح في هذا الرابط:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775bd3ae1bfaa78

تتعلق القضية بطالبة أجنبية كانت قد حصلت على تأشيرة للدراسة صادرة عن سفارة إيطالية في الخارج. وفي وقت لاحق، قامت سلطات إحدى دول منطقة شنغن بإلغاء تصريح إقامتها وإدراج تنبيه في نظام معلومات شنغن.

وبناءً على هذا التنبيه، قررت الجهة الدبلوماسية الإيطالية إلغاء التأشيرة التي سبق منحها. ونتيجة لذلك، أعلنت شرطة الهجرة في ميلانو لاحقًا عدم قبول طلب تصريح الإقامة لأغراض الدراسة الذي قدمته الطالبة.

قامت صاحبة الشأن بالطعن في هذه القرارات أمام المحكمة الإدارية، مؤكدة أن الإدارة اعتمدت على التنبيه في نظام SIS كسبب تلقائي وملزم لإلغاء التأشيرة دون إجراء تقييم إداري فعلي للظروف الخاصة بالقضية.

وقد وافقت المحكمة على هذا الطعن.

وأوضحت المحكمة أن وجود تنبيه في نظام معلومات شنغن لا يمكن أن يشكل بحد ذاته سببًا تلقائيًا لإلغاء التأشيرة. وحتى في حال وجود تنبيه في النظام، تظل الإدارة ملزمة بإجراء تقييم مستقل وفعلي للحالة الفردية.

وأكد القضاة أن القرارات الإدارية يجب أن تحترم مبادئ أساسية مثل مبدأ التناسب، وملاءمة القرار، وحماية الثقة المشروعة للشخص المعني.

وفي هذه القضية، اعتبرت الإدارة أن التنبيه في نظام SIS يفرض عليها إلغاء التأشيرة بشكل تلقائي، وكأنها لا تملك أي سلطة تقديرية. وقد اعتبرت المحكمة أن هذا التفسير غير صحيح ويتعارض مع مبادئ القانون الإداري.

وأشارت المحكمة إلى أنه كان ينبغي على الإدارة إجراء فحص إداري أكثر عمقًا للوقائع قبل اتخاذ قرار بهذا الأثر الخطير. وبسبب غياب هذا التقييم، قررت المحكمة إلغاء كل من قرار إلغاء التأشيرة والقرار اللاحق الذي أعلن عدم قبول طلب تصريح الإقامة.

ويكتسب هذا الحكم أهمية خاصة لأنه يؤكد مبدأ أساسيًا في قانون الهجرة الأوروبي، وهو أن أنظمة تبادل المعلومات بين الدول، مثل نظام SIS، هي أدوات للتعاون بين الدول، لكنها لا تلغي واجب السلطات الوطنية في تقييم كل حالة بشكل فردي.

وبعبارة أخرى، لا يمكن أن يتحول التنبيه في نظام SIS إلى قرار إداري تلقائي. بل يجب أن تكون قرارات الإدارة دائمًا مبررة ومتناسبة ومبنية على تقييم حقيقي للظروف الخاصة بكل قضية.

المحامي فابيو لوتشيربو
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

Segnalazione nel Sistema Informativo Schengen (SIS) e limiti dell’automatismo amministrativo nell’annullamento dei visti

 Segnalazione nel Sistema Informativo Schengen (SIS) e limiti dell’automatismo amministrativo nell’annullamento dei visti

Abstract

La giurisprudenza amministrativa italiana torna a confrontarsi con il tema delle segnalazioni nel Sistema Informativo Schengen (SIS) e con i loro effetti sulle procedure relative ai visti e ai titoli di soggiorno. La decisione del Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, pubblicata nel 2026, offre l’occasione per riflettere sui limiti dell’automatismo amministrativo e sul dovere dell’amministrazione di svolgere una valutazione concreta e proporzionata del caso. Il provvedimento analizzato chiarisce che la mera presenza di una segnalazione nel SIS non può essere considerata un presupposto necessario e sufficiente per l’annullamento di un visto già rilasciato, imponendo invece un’istruttoria effettiva e una ponderazione degli interessi coinvolti.

1. Introduzione

Il Sistema Informativo Schengen rappresenta uno degli strumenti centrali della cooperazione europea in materia di sicurezza e gestione delle frontiere. Attraverso questo sistema, gli Stati membri condividono informazioni relative a persone e oggetti ricercati o segnalati, con l’obiettivo di garantire un controllo coordinato all’interno dello spazio Schengen.

Nel contesto del diritto dell’immigrazione, le segnalazioni nel SIS assumono particolare rilievo perché possono incidere direttamente sui procedimenti relativi ai visti, agli ingressi e ai permessi di soggiorno. Tuttavia, l’utilizzo di tali informazioni deve sempre essere compatibile con i principi fondamentali del diritto amministrativo, tra cui la proporzionalità, la ragionevolezza e la tutela dell’affidamento.

La decisione qui esaminata, pubblicata integralmente al seguente indirizzo:

https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775bd3ae1bfaa78

offre un contributo significativo alla definizione dei limiti entro cui le amministrazioni possono utilizzare una segnalazione nel SIS come presupposto per adottare provvedimenti restrittivi.

2. Il caso oggetto della decisione

La controversia trae origine dal rilascio di un visto per motivi di studio da parte di una sede diplomatica italiana. Successivamente, le autorità di un altro Stato appartenente all’area Schengen avevano revocato il permesso di soggiorno della cittadina interessata e inserito una segnalazione nel Sistema Informativo Schengen.

A seguito di tale segnalazione, l’amministrazione italiana aveva proceduto all’annullamento d’ufficio del visto precedentemente rilasciato. In conseguenza di tale annullamento, la Questura competente aveva dichiarato irricevibile la domanda di permesso di soggiorno presentata dall’interessata.

La ricorrente ha quindi impugnato tali provvedimenti dinanzi al giudice amministrativo, sostenendo che l’amministrazione avesse applicato la segnalazione nel SIS in modo automatico, senza effettuare una valutazione concreta della situazione.

3. Il quadro normativo e il ruolo del Sistema Informativo Schengen

Il Sistema Informativo Schengen è disciplinato da una serie di regolamenti europei che regolano la raccolta, la condivisione e l’utilizzo delle informazioni tra gli Stati membri. Il sistema consente alle autorità nazionali di verificare rapidamente l’esistenza di segnalazioni relative a persone o documenti, facilitando la cooperazione transnazionale.

Tuttavia, il funzionamento del SIS non comporta che le autorità nazionali siano automaticamente vincolate a adottare determinati provvedimenti. Le informazioni contenute nel sistema devono essere interpretate e utilizzate nel rispetto dei principi generali del diritto dell’Unione e del diritto amministrativo nazionale.

Proprio su questo punto si concentra la pronuncia del TAR Lazio.

4. Il principio affermato dal TAR Lazio

Il giudice amministrativo ha chiarito che la segnalazione nel Sistema Informativo Schengen non può essere considerata un presupposto automatico e vincolante per l’annullamento di un visto.

Secondo il tribunale, l’amministrazione non può ritenersi priva di margini di valutazione discrezionale. Al contrario, deve procedere a una verifica concreta delle circostanze del caso, tenendo conto anche del principio di proporzionalità e dell’eventuale affidamento maturato dalla persona interessata.

Nel caso specifico, il collegio ha rilevato che l’amministrazione aveva trattato la segnalazione nel SIS come se costituisse un obbligo automatico di annullamento del visto, senza svolgere un’adeguata istruttoria. Tale impostazione è stata ritenuta incompatibile con i principi del diritto amministrativo.

La decisione ha quindi annullato sia il provvedimento di annullamento del visto sia il successivo atto della Questura che aveva dichiarato irricevibile la domanda di permesso di soggiorno.

5. Considerazioni conclusive

La pronuncia del TAR Lazio assume particolare rilevanza perché affronta una questione destinata a riproporsi con crescente frequenza nella prassi amministrativa: il rapporto tra i sistemi informativi europei e il potere decisionale delle amministrazioni nazionali.

Il principio affermato dal giudice amministrativo è chiaro: gli strumenti di cooperazione europea, come il Sistema Informativo Schengen, non possono trasformarsi in meccanismi di decisione automatica. L’amministrazione resta sempre tenuta a svolgere una valutazione concreta del caso, motivando adeguatamente le proprie decisioni e verificando la proporzionalità delle misure adottate.

In questa prospettiva, la decisione contribuisce a rafforzare il controllo giurisdizionale sugli automatismi amministrativi e a riaffermare il ruolo centrale dei principi di ragionevolezza, proporzionalità e tutela dell’affidamento nel diritto dell’immigrazione.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

Job-Seeking Permit Denied After Revocation of Work Authorization: Key Ruling by the Emilia-Romagna Administrative Court

 Job-Seeking Permit Denied After Revocation of Work Authorization: Key Ruling by the Emilia-Romagna Administrative Court

---

A recent ruling by the Regional Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna, First Section, published on March 16, 2026, is drawing attention among immigration law practitioners for clarifying a critical issue: when a foreign worker can — and cannot — obtain a job-seeking residence permit.

The decision, concerning case registered under general docket number 344 of 2026, addresses a situation that is far from uncommon. A foreign national had legally entered Italy with a work visa, but the employment relationship never materialized because the employer failed to appear to sign the residence contract.

In many similar cases, administrative practice allows the worker to apply for a job-seeking permit, especially when the failure to hire is not attributable to the applicant. This mechanism is intended to protect individuals who entered the country lawfully and are ready to integrate into the labor market.

However, the Court took a different approach in this case.

According to the ruling — available in full at:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775df2d97653445

the decisive factor was not the employer’s conduct, but the prior administrative act: the revocation of the work authorization that had originally allowed entry into Italy.

The Court made it clear that this element fundamentally changes the legal framework. When the work authorization is revoked, the entire entry procedure is considered invalid from the outset. This is not merely a failed hiring process — it is the collapse of the legal basis for the foreign national’s presence in the country.

As a result, the job-seeking permit cannot be granted.

The ruling draws a sharp legal distinction. A job-seeking permit may be issued when a valid entry procedure exists but the employment relationship fails for reasons beyond the worker’s control. But when the procedure itself is invalidated, there is no legal continuity to support such a permit.

The Court therefore dismissed the appeal.

This decision is likely to have significant practical implications. It reinforces a stricter interpretation of the requirements for job-seeking permits and highlights the importance of the underlying administrative procedure. For lawyers and applicants alike, it signals that challenging the revocation of the work authorization may be essential — otherwise, any subsequent application for a residence permit is likely to fail.

More broadly, the ruling reflects an increasingly formal approach in immigration law, where the validity of administrative procedures plays a decisive role, often outweighing equitable considerations related to the individual circumstances of the applicant.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

Revocation of the EU Long-Term Residence Permit Between Public Security Assessment and the Obligation to Grant an Alternative Residence Status: Commentary on TAR Emilia-Romagna, First Section, 26 February 2026, No. 334

 Revocation of the EU Long-Term Residence Permit Between Public Security Assessment and the Obligation to Grant an Alternative Residence Status: Commentary on TAR Emilia-Romagna, First Section, 26 February 2026, No. 334

The judgment delivered by the Regional Administrative Court for Emilia-Romagna (First Section) on 26 February 2026, No. 334 (case registered under general docket number 58 of 2026), provides an important opportunity to examine the legal framework governing the revocation of the EU long-term residence permit under Article 9 of Legislative Decree No. 286 of 25 July 1998 (Italian Immigration Consolidated Act).

The full text of the decision is available at the following link:
https://www.calameo.com/books/008079775aec2d43b9d32

The case originated from a decision of the Police Headquarters of Bologna revoking an EU long-term residence permit on the basis of a finding of social dangerousness, grounded in final criminal convictions for particularly serious offences. The applicant challenged the measure, arguing, inter alia, that the revocation was de facto automatic and that the administration had failed to properly assess his social, family and professional integration in Italy.

The Court addressed the structure of Article 9 of the Immigration Act. Paragraph 4 provides that the EU long-term residence permit cannot be granted to foreigners who are considered a threat to public order or State security. By virtue of the combined effect of paragraphs 4 and 7, the permit may also be revoked where the relevant conditions are no longer met. However, the provision requires a substantive assessment: the authority must consider the duration of lawful residence in Italy and the level of social, family and professional integration of the person concerned.

The judgment aligns with consolidated case law holding that revocation of long-term residence status cannot be based on an automatic link between criminal conviction and loss of status. A current and individualized assessment of dangerousness is required. In the present case, the Court found that the administration had carried out such an assessment, examining the seriousness of the offences, the impact on fundamental rights, and the applicant’s overall conduct. The evaluation was deemed neither illogical nor unreasonable, and therefore the revocation was upheld as lawful in that respect.

The most significant aspect of the ruling concerns Article 9, paragraph 9, of the Immigration Act. This provision states that where a long-term EU residence permit is revoked and expulsion is not ordered, the foreign national must be granted another type of residence permit in accordance with the Immigration Act. The norm embodies a principle of legal continuity: the loss of the “enhanced” long-term status does not automatically entail irregular stay.

In the case at hand, the Police Authority failed to carry out any assessment regarding the possible issuance of an alternative residence permit. The Court therefore partially upheld the appeal, annulling the decision insofar as it omitted consideration of this statutory obligation. The administration is now required to re-examine the applicant’s position and to assess, in light of his current circumstances, whether the requirements for a different residence permit are met.

The judgment is noteworthy for its balanced approach. On the one hand, it reaffirms the administration’s discretionary power to protect public order through a properly reasoned and individualized dangerousness assessment. On the other, it underscores that such discretion must operate within the full framework of statutory guarantees. Revocation cannot create a legal vacuum; if expulsion is not imposed, a new legal status must be evaluated.

The decision thus reinforces a core principle of the rule of law in immigration matters: administrative discretion must always be exercised in compliance with proportionality, procedural completeness, and substantive legality.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: 0009-0004-7030-0428

Un tribunal italiano aclara las reglas para convertir el permiso de trabajo estacional en permiso de trabajo ordinario

 

Un tribunal italiano aclara las reglas para convertir el permiso de trabajo estacional en permiso de trabajo ordinario

Una reciente sentencia del Tribunal Administrativo Regional de Apulia aporta una aclaración relevante sobre uno de los aspectos más discutidos del derecho de extranjería en Italia: la conversión del permiso de residencia por trabajo estacional en un permiso de residencia por trabajo subordinado, especialmente en el sector agrícola.

La decisión fue dictada por el Tribunal Administrativo Regional para Apulia (TAR Puglia), Sección Tercera, sentencia número 292 de 2026, publicada el 10 de marzo de 2026 en el procedimiento inscrito en el registro general número 175 de 2026.

El caso: la negativa a convertir el permiso

El litigio surgió después de que la Prefectura de Bari —a través de la Oficina Única de Inmigración— rechazara la solicitud de un trabajador extranjero que pedía convertir su permiso de residencia de trabajo estacional en un permiso por trabajo subordinado.

La administración consideró que el trabajador no cumplía el requisito mínimo de actividad laboral exigido en el sector agrícola. Según la autoridad administrativa, el interesado no había demostrado haber trabajado al menos 39 jornadas dentro de tres meses, con una media de 13 jornadas por mes, conforme a las circulares ministeriales aplicables.

Esta conclusión se basó en una interpretación estricta del concepto de “tres meses”, entendido como tres meses naturales o calendarios. Aplicando este criterio, varias jornadas laborales realizadas entre el final de un mes y el inicio del siguiente quedaron excluidas del cómputo.

El marco jurídico

De acuerdo con el artículo 24, apartado 10, del Decreto Legislativo nº 286 de 25 de julio de 1998 (Texto Único de Inmigración), un trabajador estacional que haya desarrollado actividad laboral regular en Italia durante al menos tres meses y que reciba una oferta de empleo subordinado puede solicitar la conversión de su permiso de residencia.

En el sector agrícola, sin embargo, el trabajo suele contabilizarse por jornadas laborales y no por meses completos. Por esta razón, una circular conjunta de los ministerios competentes, publicada el 27 de octubre de 2023, aclaró que el requisito de tres meses equivale a al menos 39 jornadas de trabajo cubiertas por cotización a la seguridad social, con una media de 13 jornadas por mes.

La interpretación del tribunal

El tribunal administrativo rechazó la interpretación rígida adoptada por la administración. Según los jueces, la referencia normativa a los “tres meses” debe entenderse como un período de aproximadamente 90 días, y no necesariamente como tres meses naturales completos.

Una interpretación estrictamente ligada al calendario mensual conduciría, según el tribunal, a un resultado excesivamente penalizador para el trabajador, ya que excluiría jornadas laborales efectivamente realizadas.

En la sentencia se afirma:

“Las disposiciones vigentes se limitan a prever que el trabajador estacional que haya desarrollado actividad laboral regular en el territorio nacional durante al menos tres meses y al que se le ofrezca un contrato de trabajo subordinado puede solicitar la conversión del permiso de residencia en permiso de trabajo.”

El tribunal también aclaró que el período de referencia debe comenzar desde el primer día efectivo de trabajo, y no desde el primer día del mes calendario.

Una decisión relevante para el sector agrícola

Esta sentencia es particularmente importante porque evita una interpretación excesivamente formalista de las normas administrativas. Reconoce la realidad del trabajo agrícola, caracterizado por periodos de actividad irregulares y dependientes de las necesidades productivas.

Al considerar que el trimestre debe entenderse como un periodo de aproximadamente 90 días desde el inicio efectivo del trabajo, el tribunal adopta una interpretación más coherente con la finalidad de la norma: comprobar la existencia de una actividad laboral real.

Por este motivo, el tribunal anuló la decisión de la Prefectura de Bari y ordenó a la administración revisar nuevamente la solicitud del trabajador en un plazo de treinta días.

Implicaciones más amplias para el derecho de extranjería

Más allá del caso concreto, la sentencia pone de relieve una cuestión estructural del sistema migratorio italiano: la distancia entre criterios administrativos rígidos y la realidad práctica del mercado laboral, especialmente en sectores como la agricultura.

Al recordar que las normas deben interpretarse conforme a su finalidad, el tribunal contribuye a garantizar una aplicación más equilibrada del derecho de inmigración y evita que obstáculos puramente formales impidan la regularización de trabajadores que ya están integrados en el mercado laboral.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Abogado – Derecho de inmigración
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

Italian Court Clarifies Rules for Converting Seasonal Work Permits into Regular Employment

 

Italian Court Clarifies Rules for Converting Seasonal Work Permits into Regular Employment

A recent ruling by the Regional Administrative Court of Puglia offers important clarification on one of the most debated aspects of Italy’s immigration system: the conversion of a seasonal work permit into a regular employment permit, particularly in the agricultural sector.

The judgment was issued by the Regional Administrative Court for Puglia (TAR Puglia), Section III, decision no. 292 of 2026, published on 10 March 2026 in case registered under general register number 175 of 2026.

The case: a rejected conversion request

The dispute arose after the Prefecture of Bari – through the One-Stop Immigration Desk – rejected a foreign worker’s request to convert his residence permit from seasonal work to regular employment.

The administration argued that the worker had not met the minimum activity requirement required in the agricultural sector. According to the authorities, he had failed to demonstrate at least 39 working days within three calendar months, with an average of 13 working days per month, as indicated in ministerial guidelines.

The negative assessment relied heavily on a strict interpretation of the concept of “three months,” calculated according to calendar months. Under this interpretation, several working days performed between the end of one month and the beginning of the next were excluded from the calculation.

The legal framework

Under Article 24, paragraph 10 of Legislative Decree No. 286/1998 (the Italian Consolidated Immigration Act), a seasonal worker who has carried out regular work in Italy for at least three months and who receives an offer of regular employment may request the conversion of the residence permit into a standard work permit.

In the agricultural sector, however, work is often measured in individual workdays rather than monthly contracts. For this reason, a joint ministerial circular issued on 27 October 2023 clarified that the requirement of three months of work corresponds to at least 39 working days covered by social security contributions, averaging 13 days per month.

The court’s interpretation

The court disagreed with the rigid interpretation adopted by the labor authorities. It emphasized that the legislation refers to a period of work equivalent to roughly three months, which should be understood as a period of about 90 days, not necessarily as three calendar months.

According to the ruling, excluding working days performed “between months” leads to an interpretation that is excessively formalistic and inconsistent with the purpose of the law.

As the judgment explains:

“The existing provisions simply state that a seasonal worker who has carried out regular work on national territory for at least three months and who receives an offer of employment may request the conversion of the residence permit into a work permit.”

The court further clarified that the relevant reference period should start from the actual beginning of employment, not from the first day of the calendar month.

Why the decision matters

This ruling is significant because it rejects an overly bureaucratic approach that could prevent seasonal workers from stabilizing their employment status even when they have genuinely worked the required number of days.

By interpreting the three-month requirement as approximately 90 days from the start of employment, the court adopted a more realistic approach to agricultural labor, where work often occurs intermittently depending on seasonal needs.

The judgment ultimately annulled the rejection issued by the Prefecture of Bari and ordered the administration to reassess the worker’s application within thirty days.

Broader implications for immigration policy

The decision highlights a recurring issue within Italy’s immigration system: the gap between formal administrative criteria and the practical realities of seasonal work.

Agriculture relies heavily on migrant labor, often organized through short daily contracts tied to weather conditions, crop cycles, and labor demand. Applying rigid calendar-based calculations risks excluding legitimate workers from the possibility of converting their permits and continuing their employment legally.

The ruling therefore contributes to a growing body of case law emphasizing that immigration rules must be interpreted in light of their underlying purpose, which in this context is to verify genuine employment rather than to create unnecessary procedural barriers.

For employers and migrant workers alike, the judgment provides a clearer legal standard and may influence future administrative practice across Italy.

---

Fabio Loscerbo
Immigration Lawyer
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

Ascolta "Segnalazione SIS e annullamento del visto il TAR Lazio esclude l’automatismo" su Spreaker.