We are talking about “former” flows decree, which could be applied to from past February 24th 2005. Application forms had to be sent through post offices.
We keep receiving e-mails that ask what can be done against the problem of post offices’ opening times.
Many citizens that went to post offices at their habitual opening time (8.30 a.m.) were excluded in spite of the fact that they prepared documents on time and that they immediately went to post offices. The ones that went to those offices that open at 8.00/7.30 a.m. were privileged.
We are still being questioned whether something can be done or not, we therefore chose to answer to one of the mail e-mails we receive.
As we many times said Local Labour Departments (DPL) were requested explanations on this matter. Many of them sent questions to Labour Ministry in order to understand whether applications sent before 8.30 should have priority or not.
We have never had the chance of seeing Ministry’s answer, but we were referred that it said that the importance is that applications were sent from post offices. If post offices opened earlier than 8.30 a.m., application forms that were sent from such places are to prevail over the ones sent from offices that regularly opened at 8.30. This seems to be Ministry of Labour’s answer, Local Labour Departments are now evaluating proceedings and application forms and in doing this they are following Ministry’s instructions.
Many citizens ask us whether something can be done or not, whether pilot appeals can be pursuit or not. Can TAR court consider this unlawful? This is what many ask.
Can the fact that some application forms were sent before 8.30 a.m. be considered disloyal competition?
The problem is that such application forms were sent through post offices during their opening times, which are not habitual, of course, and rather limited to specific offices.
Unfortunately the problem is interpretative and based upon brief and incomplete Ministry’s instructions, which simply said that application forms should have been sent through post offices.
Just few days before the publication of flows decree Ministry of Welfare explained that application forms could only be sent from Azienda Poste Italiane (Italian Post Office).
In other words, the rush towards flows decree quotas is a sort of competition.
This is quite a delicate interpretation matter. Theoretically speaking arguments do exist to appeal against rejection to labour authorisation, they are rather abstract and they are based upon the idea that quotas are over because applications sent before 8.30 a.m. were considered valid. Theoretically speaking appeals could be presented to Courts but we can hardly imagine that appeals are agreed upon. Anyway, if nobody ever tries we cannot know whether magistrates accept this interpretation or not.
There’s also another problem linked to this issue. Rejection provisions were sent to employers that applied to flows decree quotas.
Can rejection be quickly impugned in order to have the rejection suspended?
Suspension would be the only temporary solution to the problem, because appeals’ usual times are very long (they take years to sentence) and this would be worth nothing. In the meanwhile the matter would find a solution alone: employers may not need the worker anymore and the worker may have found another employment…
We anyway need to make some considerations.
Employers
How could be employers be damaged in case they impugned the rejection to flows decree quotas?
Employers may have a hard time in proving that they are damaged by the denial to entry authorisation, this means that the suspension would hardly come as well as the Court would hardly choose to have a Council and decide whether to suspend rejection or not.
EmployeesOn the other hand employees could feel that they have the right to appeal against authorisation rejection and they could do it themselves. Workers officially are not in Italy and they cannot present the appeal in Italy, they should do it from abroad through the Italian chancellery, which should issue a proxy to the lawyer that is in charge of appealing within 60 days from entry authorisation rejection. This hypothesis is rather unimaginable as well.
We should also consider that the rejection of flows decree application forms is a negative provision and negative provisions are not usually suspended. Even if suspension is agreed upon, this does not mean that institutions will immediately issue an entry visa to have interested migrant workers authorised to come to Italy.
We unfortunately believe that such appeals are hardly to be accepted by Courts. Ministry of Labour instructions were not precise and they allowed this discrimination, which we are talking about, all over the territory.
This means that any judge appointed to sentence over the matter would feel over-responsible about the appeal. In case his/her interpretation goes against Ministry’s instructions, DPL and ministry would meet huge complications.
These are the reasons for which I believe that very little can be done against this evident injustice that ministry allowed to occur.