Denial of Immigration Detention (Order of January 23, 2026):

The Bologna Court of Appeal Reaffirms the Primacy of Effective Integration

On January 23, 2026, the Court of Appeal of Bologna, acting through a single judge, denied the validation of an immigration detention order issued by the police authorities against a foreign national held in an Italian immigration detention center. The decision is noteworthy not because it involves an ordinary case, but precisely because it concerns an individual with multiple and serious criminal convictions, including violent offenses. It is this element that places the ruling at the center of public controversy and makes it particularly relevant for an international audience.

In public debates, both in Europe and in the United States, the presence of serious criminal convictions often leads to a simplified conclusion: that a foreign national who has committed serious crimes should be automatically detained and removed. The Bologna decision takes a different path. It does not dispute the gravity of the past conduct, nor does it minimize the social alarm such cases can generate. Instead, it addresses a strictly legal question: whether past criminal convictions, by themselves, are sufficient to justify an ongoing deprivation of personal liberty through immigration detention.

Under the Italian constitutional framework, immigration detention is regarded as an exceptional measure. It is not a criminal sanction, but an administrative tool that can be used only when strictly necessary and only if grounded in present, demonstrable conditions. The court made clear that criminal history, even when serious, belongs to the past unless it is shown to translate into a current and concrete threat to public order or security. Without that showing, detention risks becoming a form of indirect punishment imposed after the criminal sentence has already been fully served.

The court’s reasoning focuses on the present situation of the individual rather than on an abstract assessment based on past wrongdoing. The sentence had been entirely executed, the execution phase had been accompanied by positive evaluations from judicial authorities responsible for supervision, and the individual had demonstrated a capacity to comply with legal obligations in conditions of controlled freedom. Against this background, the court concluded that the requirement of present dangerousness was not met and that detention could not be lawfully upheld.

This reasoning is particularly significant for an international audience because it highlights the structural limits that constitutional systems place on migration control. The decision does not deny the legitimacy of removal policies, nor does it suggest that criminal conduct is irrelevant in immigration matters. What it affirms is that removal and detention must operate within a framework of legality that rejects categorical or automatic approaches. Liberty, once restricted, must be justified by present facts, not by historical stigma.

In this sense, the ruling offers a clear illustration of how a legal system distinguishes between integration and automatic exclusion. Integration, as understood by the court, is not a moral reward or a political slogan. It is a factual and legal condition, grounded in conduct, compliance with the law, and verifiable social insertion. When such integration exists and no present threat is demonstrated, the use of detention becomes legally unsustainable. Conversely, when integration fails or when a current risk is established, removal remains a legitimate option under the law.

The broader significance of the Bologna decision lies in its demonstration that the most difficult cases are those in which the rule of law must be applied with the greatest rigor. Protecting legal guarantees in cases involving serious criminal histories is not a sign of weakness, but of constitutional coherence. Security and legality are not opposing values; security is strengthened when coercive powers are exercised within clear and enforceable legal boundaries. This decision shows that effective integration, when real and demonstrable, has legal consequences, and that its assessment must always prevail over automatic or category-based solutions.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law – Bologna Bar
EU Transparency Register – Lobbyist
ID 280782895721-36