Per la libertà di movimento, per i diritti di cittadinanza

Regularisation – What do when old expulsion orders take to rejections and denials

We have many times talked about TAR courts that interpret immigration regularisation laws in a less strict way than Home office actually does. Everyday the number of the ones that were excluded from regularisation and therefore choose to appeal against this increases in spite of juridical bureaucracy. Regularisation denials are usually explained with the existence of ongoing juridical proceedings.
TAR court in Veneto raised another problem linked to the constitutional lawfulness of quoted above. TAR court denounced that such denials violate the non-guilty principle (Constitution art. 27).
There have been many cases of people who were denied regularisation (because of the ministry of interior instructions) who finally were acquitted from charged crimes. Similar to these cases is everyday more frequent, juridical administrations times do not run together with regularisation’s bureaucracy. Since regularisation cannot be suspended up to the day the final sentence is read the cases we are talking about will everyday increase in numbers.

Example – There are citizens who were denied regularisation because they were charged of counterfeiting. But then court didn’t consider them guilty of the crime.
We shall now study the case of a person charged of counterfeiting. The crime was then softened to simple theft. Theft was then estinguished because this person, via his lawyer found the owner of the stolen scooter, he paid the owner back and the report was retired.
Italian law considers this person as acquitted, no precedents no charges, therefore he is now to request that his regularization proceedings are evaluated again by Prefecture which previously denied regularization. The istance will state that he cannot be considered responsible for juridical times, in case court decided he is not guilty of crimes just a month before he would have obtained regularization. We should believe that Prefecture positively answers since no ostative circumstancies exist, there are no other circumstancies that should take to regularization denial. This person has always been working and paying for contributions in the same firm.
This same person could have also appealed to TAR court. TAR courts in fact consider that the correct interpretation of law is the one that respectfully follows Constitutional principles. This is the reason why TAR courts suspended regularization denials and asked to Constitutional court to espress its point of view on the quoted rule. TAR suspects that this rule is not respectful of the constitutional non-guilt principle and should be considered unlawful.
We shall see what Constitutional court says on the matter, it will take time because Constitutional court has to answer to many questions court asked about Bossi-Fini law.
In the meanwhile denials are suspended and interested people should therefore be able to keep on working and to have a temporary residence permit issued.