Bologna Ordinary Court, decision of 5 December 2025, Case No. R.G. 923/2025
For a U.S. audience, the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigrazione” should be understood as a legal framework, not as a political slogan. Importantly, ReImmigrazione is a brand and a legal-concept label: it is not translated and should not be confused with generic notions of “return” or with ideological theories circulating in parts of Europe.
The paradigm reflects how the Italian and European legal systems already operate: lawful stay is conditional upon effective integration; where integration fails, lawful return remains the system’s natural outcome.
A recent decision of the Tribunale di Bologna (5 December 2025, Case No. 923/2025) offers a clear illustration of this logic through the application of protezione complementare (complementary protection).
What “complementary protection” actually means in Italy
From a U.S. perspective, it is essential to avoid false equivalences. Italian complementary protection is not asylum, nor a discretionary humanitarian waiver. It is a rights-based legal safeguard, rooted in European human rights law—specifically the protection of private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This form of protection applies only when removal would cause a disproportionate interference with a life already built within the host society. In other words, the law protects integration that has already occurred.
The Bologna court makes this explicit: complementary protection does not create integration; it legally acknowledges it once it is proven.
Integration as a legal threshold, not a moral argument
The court’s reasoning follows a structure familiar to American constitutional lawyers. Integration is treated as a fact pattern, assessed through objective indicators: stable employment, economic self-sufficiency, family and social ties, lawful conduct, and absence of public-security concerns.
These elements function as a legal threshold. When they are met, the State’s power to remove is limited. When they are not, that power remains fully operative.
This is where the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigrazione” becomes clear: integration operates as the legal condition for remaining. Its absence reopens the path to lawful removal.
ReImmigrazione versus “Remigration”: a necessary clarification
Much confusion arises from the use of the term “remigration” in European debates, especially those of German origin. In some contexts, “remigration” implies broad or collective return policies detached from individualized legal assessment.
ReImmigrazione is something else entirely.
It is not ideological, collective, or automatic. It is a juridical outcome, applied on a case-by-case basis, when the individual does not meet the integration-based criteria that justify continued stay.
In this sense, ReImmigrazione is not in tension with complementary protection. The two concepts are structurally linked: one applies when integration is proven; the other applies when it is not.
A rule-based system, not a political compromise
The Bologna decision shows a system that neither tolerates permanent irregularity nor endorses indiscriminate enforcement. Instead, it applies a rule-based conditional model: rights follow responsibility, and permanence follows integration.
For an American reader, this offers an alternative way to think about migration governance—one that avoids the binary of “open borders versus mass deportation” and replaces it with a legally enforceable standard.
The ruling of 5 December 2025 (Case No. 923/2025) confirms that Integration or ReImmigrazione is not an abstract proposal. It is already embedded in judicial practice. The law does not ask whether a person is present. It asks whether that presence has become legally meaningful.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer – Italy
Registered EU Transparency Register Lobbyist
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento