Florence Ordinary Tribunal, Decision of December 30, 2025 (R.G. 788/2024)

Complementary Protection and ReImmigration: When Legal Protection Strengthens Sovereignty

Florence Ordinary Tribunal, Decision of December 30, 2025 (R.G. 788/2024)

Complementary Protection and ReImmigration: When Legal Protection Strengthens Sovereignty

In Western democracies, immigration law often collapses under a false dilemma: either strict enforcement or unconditional protection. This binary approach has distorted public debate and weakened confidence in the rule of law. The decision issued on December 30, 2025, by the Florence Ordinary Tribunal, case number R.G. 788/2024, offers a more mature and legally coherent framework, one that may be particularly instructive for an American audience. The full text of the 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 legal safeguard grounded in constitutional and international obligations. The Tribunal makes an essential clarification: this form of protection is not a generalized humanitarian amnesty, nor a concealed pathway to permanent settlement. It is a narrowly tailored instrument, activated only when removal would result in a disproportionate interference with an individual’s private life, in violation of fundamental rights standards.

What makes this decision particularly relevant beyond Italy is its method. The court rejects automatic assumptions and ideological shortcuts. Time spent in the country, procedural delays, or the mere filing of asylum claims are not treated as sufficient grounds for protection. Instead, the assessment focuses on whether the individual has built a real, verifiable life within the host society. Integration is not presumed; it must be demonstrated through concrete facts and sustained conduct over time. Protection, therefore, becomes the legal consequence of responsibility, not its substitute.

This proportionality-based approach will sound familiar to American readers. It reflects the same constitutional logic that underpins judicial review in the United States, where rights are protected through contextual balancing rather than blanket rules. The Tribunal explicitly frames complementary protection as an exception justified only when the human cost of removal would clearly outweigh the public interest in enforcement. In doing so, it reinforces, rather than undermines, the authority of the State.

This is where the decision aligns with the paradigm of ReImmigration. ReImmigration does not deny protection, nor does it advocate collective or indiscriminate returns. It rests on a simple but demanding principle: integration is an obligation, not an entitlement. Where integration is real and demonstrable, the law protects. Where it is absent, the legitimacy of return is restored. A system that protects everyone regardless of conduct ultimately loses the capacity to remove anyone. By contrast, a system that protects selectively preserves both its humanity and its credibility.

The Florence Tribunal’s decision illustrates how legal protection can strengthen sovereignty rather than weaken it. By applying complementary protection rigorously and without ideological distortion, the court affirms that the State remains capable of enforcing immigration law while respecting constitutional and international limits. This balance is precisely what many Western democracies, including the United States, struggle to achieve.

In the broader context of migration policy, the ruling sends a clear message. Legal protection is not the enemy of enforcement. On the contrary, it is the condition that makes enforcement politically defensible and morally legitimate. Complementary protection, when properly applied, does not obstruct ReImmigration. It completes it. Only by clearly distinguishing those who have integrated from those who have not can a democratic State maintain control of its borders without abandoning its legal and ethical foundations.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law – Italy
EU Transparency Register Lobbyist no. 280782895721-36