Italy Recognises Complementary Protection: When Integration Becomes a Legal Shield

 Italy Recognises Complementary Protection: When Integration Becomes a Legal Shield

In a significant administrative decision, Italy has once again confirmed that integration into society can play a decisive role in protecting migrants from removal. On 18 December 2025, the Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection of Genoa granted complementary protection to a foreign national, acknowledging that forced return would result in a disproportionate violation of fundamental rights.

The full decision has been published and is publicly available here:
https://www.calameo.com/books/00807977586f4b5d40bb2

Complementary protection is a specific form of legal protection under Italian law, regulated by Article 19 of the Immigration Act (Legislative Decree No. 286/1998). It applies in cases where a person does not qualify as a refugee or for subsidiary protection, but where expulsion or deportation would nonetheless breach core human rights obligations, including the right to private and family life.

In this case, the Genoa Commission rejected refugee status and subsidiary protection, yet carried out a separate and autonomous assessment of the applicant’s personal situation. The decisive factor was the individual’s effective integration in Italy, particularly in social and employment terms. The Commission recognised that the applicant had built stable personal and professional ties and that removal would cause serious and irreversible harm to those relationships.

What makes this decision especially relevant is the legal reasoning behind it. Integration was not treated as a “reward” for good behaviour, but as a legally relevant element of private life, protected under European human rights standards. The Commission concluded that returning the individual to the country of origin would amount to a disproportionate interference with those rights.

This approach reflects a broader trend in Italian administrative practice, where complementary protection is increasingly understood as a substantive safeguard, not a marginal or residual measure. It confirms that immigration control must be balanced against the obligation to protect human dignity and fundamental freedoms.

For migrants living in Italy, the decision sends a clear message: building real and documented ties to the country can have concrete legal consequences. Work, social relationships, and long-term residence are not merely factual circumstances; they may become decisive elements in preventing removal.

For lawyers and practitioners, the Genoa decision offers an important example of how complementary protection operates in practice. It shows that even when international protection is denied, Italian law still provides mechanisms to ensure that no one is returned in violation of fundamental rights.

As debates on migration continue across Europe, this case highlights a key principle: integration matters, not only socially, but also legally.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo