Bologna Ordinary Court (Italy), judgment of 19 December 2025
The judgment delivered on 19 December 2025 by the Tribunale Ordinario di Bologna offers a clear and legally structured illustration of how Italian complementary protection operates today as a constitutional safeguard, and how integration functions as a decisive legal criterion within what I define as the “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” paradigm.
For a U.S. audience, it is crucial to clarify at the outset that complementary protection under Italian law is not equivalent to asylum, nor is it comparable to discretionary humanitarian relief or prosecutorial discretion as known in the American system. It is, instead, a rights-based legal mechanism, triggered when removal would violate constitutional or international human rights obligations binding on the State.
Complementary protection as a constitutional limit on deportation
Under Italian law, complementary protection applies when an individual does not qualify for refugee status or subsidiary protection, yet deportation would result in a serious and disproportionate interference with fundamental rights, particularly the right to private and family life.
In the Bologna case, the Court explicitly rejected the administrative assessment carried out by the immigration authorities, reaffirming that the power to remove a non-citizen is not absolute. Where removal conflicts with constitutionally protected interests, the State is legally barred from enforcing it. This transforms complementary protection into a judicially enforceable right, rather than a matter of administrative grace.
From a U.S. perspective, this is a key distinction: the Italian system embeds human rights constraints directly into the legality of removal, not merely into enforcement priorities.
Integration as a legally measurable factor
The core of the judgment lies in its treatment of integration. The Bologna Court makes clear that integration is neither a political slogan nor a moral claim. It is a legal factor, assessed through objective and verifiable elements.
Employment is relevant, but not determinative on its own. What matters is whether work reflects lawful participation in society. The Court also evaluates housing stability, language proficiency, duration of stay, social relationships, and family ties. Together, these elements demonstrate whether the individual has developed a genuine private life rooted in the host society.
Importantly, the Court rejects the idea that integration must be total, irreversible, or permanent. Any serious and consistent effort to integrate, supported by evidence, is sufficient to trigger constitutional protection. This avoids both an overly restrictive standard and an automatic entitlement to remain.
The “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” paradigm
This reasoning leads directly to the Integrazione o ReImmigrazione paradigm.
Integration does not create an unconditional right to stay. Rather, it functions as a selective constitutional filter. Where integration has reached a level such that deportation would cause an unjustified disruption of private or family life, complementary protection must be granted. Where such integration is absent, ReImmigrazione—the return to the country of origin—becomes the legally coherent outcome.
Crucially, ReImmigrazione is not punitive. It is the result of a proportionality analysis that finds no constitutionally protected interest strong enough to prevent removal. This makes the paradigm structurally different from narratives based on unconditional inclusion or blanket exclusion.
Why this matters for the United States
For American readers, the Bologna judgment illustrates a model in which immigration enforcement is constitutionally disciplined, not merely administratively managed. Integration is not assessed through policy discretion but through judicial review, and removal decisions are constrained by enforceable rights rather than shifting enforcement priorities.
This framework shows that it is possible to reconcile border control with human rights protection without collapsing into either permissiveness or arbitrariness. Complementary protection becomes the legal core of the system, ensuring that sovereignty operates within constitutional limits.
Conclusion
The Bologna Ordinary Court judgment of 19 December 2025 confirms that complementary protection is no longer a marginal doctrine in Italian immigration law. It is the operational mechanism through which integration acquires legal relevance and ReImmigrazione emerges as the lawful consequence of non-integration.
This is not a political theory, but a functioning constitutional model, grounded in proportionality, individual responsibility, and the rule of law—one that may offer valuable insights beyond the Italian and European context.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law – EU Transparency Register Lobbyist
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento