Bologna Ordinary Court (Italy), judgment of 19 December 2025
The judgment delivered on 19 December 2025 by the Tribunale Ordinario di Bologna provides a clear and structured illustration of how Italian complementary protection operates as a constitutional constraint on removal, and how integration functions as a legally decisive factor within the paradigm known as “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione.”
For a UK audience, it is essential to clarify that complementary protection under Italian law is neither equivalent to refugee status nor comparable to discretionary leave to remain or humanitarian relief as developed under UK immigration policy. It is a rights-based mechanism, grounded in constitutional and international obligations, and subject to full judicial scrutiny.
Complementary protection as a limit on executive power
Under Italian law, complementary protection applies when an individual does not qualify for international protection, yet removal would result in a disproportionate interference with fundamental rights, particularly the right to private and family life.
In the Bologna case, the Court overturned the administrative assessment and reaffirmed a key principle familiar to common law systems: executive power over immigration is not absolute. Where deportation would breach constitutionally protected interests, the State is legally barred from enforcing it. Complementary protection therefore operates not as a matter of discretion, but as an enforceable legal entitlement.
This approach resonates with UK principles of judicial review, where proportionality and human rights compliance act as external constraints on administrative decision-making.
Integration as a legally assessable criterion
The most significant aspect of the judgment lies in its treatment of integration as a justiciable factor, rather than a political aspiration or policy objective.
The Court adopts a holistic assessment, considering employment, housing stability, length of residence, language acquisition, and genuine social and family ties. Employment alone is not decisive; it is relevant only insofar as it demonstrates lawful participation in the host society.
Crucially, the Court rejects any requirement of complete or irreversible integration. What is required is a serious, current and objectively verifiable trajectory of integration. This avoids both an unduly restrictive threshold and the risk of automatic regularisation.
The “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” paradigm
This reasoning gives concrete legal meaning to the Integrazione o ReImmigrazione paradigm.
Integration does not confer an unconditional right to remain. Instead, it operates as a selective constitutional filter. Where integration has reached a level such that removal would constitute an unjustified disruption of private or family life, complementary protection must be granted. Where such integration is absent, ReImmigrazione—return to the country of origin—represents the legally coherent outcome of the proportionality assessment.
Importantly, ReImmigrazione is not punitive. It is the lawful consequence of a finding that no protected interest outweighs the State’s legitimate interest in immigration control.
Relevance for the UK legal context
From a UK perspective, this model is noteworthy because it embeds integration directly into the legality of removal, rather than treating it as a matter of policy discretion or ministerial guidance. The Italian courts position integration as a factor capable of triggering enforceable legal protection, subject to judicial review and evidentiary standards.
This demonstrates how immigration control can be exercised within a constitutionally disciplined framework, preserving sovereignty while ensuring compliance with fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The Bologna Ordinary Court judgment of 19 December 2025 confirms that complementary protection now constitutes the operational core of Italian immigration law. Integration becomes a legally measurable criterion, while ReImmigrazione emerges as the lawful consequence of non-integration.
This is not a theoretical construct, but a functioning legal model, grounded in proportionality, individual responsibility and the rule of law—offering a structured alternative to both indiscriminate inclusion and rigid exclusion.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law – EU Transparency Register Lobbyist
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento