Complementary Protection and ReImmigration: When the Rule of Law Reinforces Sovereignty
In the United Kingdom, as across much of Europe, immigration policy is increasingly caught between two unsatisfactory extremes: rigid enforcement detached from legal safeguards, and expansive protection that gradually erodes the credibility of border control. This tension has weakened public confidence in the system and blurred the distinction between lawful protection and de facto settlement.
The decision issued on 30 December 2025 by the Florence Ordinary Tribunal, case R.G. 788/2024, offers a legally coherent alternative that deserves attention beyond Italy. The full decision is publicly available at:
https://www.calameo.com/books/00807977541b94e1f7da1
The ruling concerns what Italian law defines as “complementary protection”, a residual form of protection grounded in constitutional principles and international human rights obligations. The Tribunal makes a crucial clarification: this protection is neither a general humanitarian amnesty nor an automatic pathway to long-term residence. It is a narrowly circumscribed safeguard, applicable only where removal would cause a disproportionate interference with an individual’s private life, contrary to fundamental rights standards.
What is particularly relevant for a UK audience is the court’s method. The judge deliberately avoids any form of automatism. Length of stay, procedural delays or the mere existence of pending proceedings are not treated as decisive. Protection is granted only where the individual has demonstrated, through concrete and verifiable facts, that a genuine private life has been established within the host society. Integration is not assumed; it must be proven. In this sense, legal protection follows responsibility and conduct, rather than replacing them.
This reasoning closely reflects principles familiar to British constitutional culture. The decision is built around proportionality and case-by-case assessment, concepts well known to UK courts in the context of human rights adjudication. The Tribunal does not deny the State’s right to enforce immigration law; instead, it insists that enforcement must be exercised in a manner compatible with the rule of law. Complementary protection thus emerges as a justified exception, not as a general rule undermining removals.
It is precisely here that the decision aligns with the paradigm of ReImmigration. ReImmigration does not reject protection, nor does it question the binding nature of human rights obligations. It is based on a simple but demanding premise: integration is a real social and legal process, not a mere administrative label. Where integration has genuinely taken place, the law protects. Where it has not, the legitimacy of return is reaffirmed. A system that protects indiscriminately ultimately loses its capacity to remove anyone. A system that protects selectively preserves both fairness and authority.
The Florence Tribunal’s ruling shows that legal protection, when applied rigorously, strengthens rather than weakens state sovereignty. By clearly defining the limits of complementary protection, the court reinforces the credibility of immigration enforcement and restores coherence to the legal framework. Protection becomes intelligible, defensible and compatible with democratic governance.
In a British context marked by growing concern over irregular migration and the effectiveness of removals, this decision offers a valuable lesson. It demonstrates that enforcement and legality are not opposing objectives. On the contrary, enforcement becomes sustainable only when grounded in a clear and principled legal structure. Complementary protection, properly applied, is not an obstacle to ReImmigration. It is the condition that makes it legitimate.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law – Italy
EU Transparency Register Lobbyist no. 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento