This sentence is extremely positive towards migrant citizens in fact it considers a re-occurring problem. In fact civil judges having to sentence on impugnments against administrative expulsions rarely consider the presence and the hearing of the interested person necessary.
It often is the case of appeals carried out without giving interested people the chance of referring their point of view which could be different from the one administration gives. This usually happens to people detained inside detention centres.
The sentence we are talking about isn’t anyway an absolute precedent.
Court of Annulment sentence n. 10303/July 16 2002, sentence n. 15413/December 5 2001, sentence n. 13865/November 9 2001 are other examples.
This latest sentence anyway underlines with a number of details this principle, when appealing against expulsions judges need to have a hearing with the interested person and his/her presence is necessary at the trial. The fact that a person could be in a detention centre doesn’t change the fact.
Remeber that in case an expulsion is confirmed without the person presence the sentence or the measure is to be considered worthless.
In many cases migrants are simply considered irregularly staying in the territory or clandestines who violated entry rules but nothing is said about the fact that many were stopped by police when they were trying to apply for asylum. In case such circumstance is not taken into consideration and the interested person cannot explain it all possible evaluations of the case would not be complete and a person being expelled could risk persecution back home.
This and many other matters justify immigration consolidated act text and make the hearing compulsory when appeals against expulsion occur.