Question – I read your comment upon Constitutional Court’s sentence. I come from Senegal, I was rejected regularisation because of “criminal precedents” (counterfeited cds). I still live in Italy and I am interested in knowing which proceedings I should apply to in order to be authorised to labour.
Can you help me?
Compliments for your web-page: it is always very exhaustive.
P.s. Can’t we do anything about the ongoing discriminations about post offices opening times and flows decree?
Answer – This question is linked to a piece of news we recently talked about, a Constitutional Court’s sentence established that the rules that during regularisation 2002 escluded migrats if they were charged of a crime are unlawful.
The interpretative effort Constitutional Court was obliged to was great: the violation of non-guilt principle (up tothe issueing of the ultimate sentence) as established by Italian Constitution article 26 as well as the violation of art.3 (all citizens must be equally treated) were self-evident therefore Constitutional Court abolished those regularisation rules.
Today this Senegalese boy asks us what he can do.
We shall generically consider the issue in order to answer to this question.
Constitutional Court’s sentence shoul lead to the fact that the government evaluates and changes regualrisation’s rules and instructions. Citizens that appealed against the rejection of papers had hard times to see the rejection suspended up the day Constitutional Court sentenced on the matter. In fact Courts asked to verify the lawfulness of such rules. They did have problems in spite of the appeal. We suppose that the ones that back then did not promote appeals will have huge difficulties.
Home Office should feel the need of starting new evaluations of such rejected application forms and it should accept the court’s sentence: in other words the government should communicate all qualified offices that proceedings should be newly gon through.
The problem is that the effects of a Constitutional Court sentence are not immediate, but they are retroactive. This means that when Constitutional Court abolishes a law or a rule, the effect is retroactive. All rejections could be therefore re-evaluated if prescriptions did not occur.
Anyway, in case rejection to regularisation was not impugned, we are not guarantee that the effect of the quoted sentence is to be automatic, we can suggest to this person to formally require that Prefecture reconsiders the case. A registered letter should be sent to the same Prefecture UTG that rejected regularisation, the letter should state that apart from a very modest crime all regularisation requisites were asnwered to. Therefore Prefecture is asked to re-study the application to regularisation as a consequence of Constitutional Court sentence.
In case re-examination is denied, legal appeal could start off.
We anyway believe that the government should have all the rejected application re-examined by local Prefectures on basis of Constitutional Court’s sentence.
We are afraid the government won’t do anything and therefore it is interested citizens’ duty to have the situation change.