We well know of the situation in former Yugoslavia and Kosovo, many had to flee away and ask for humanitarian asylum. It was back then an ecceptional measure (DPCM September 1st 2000) which allowed humanitarian papers to work. Ministry of interior affairs subsequently adopted a memorandum which stated that police headquarters couldn’t automatically renew papers, not even the ones whose holders already worked and held accomodation. According to this memorandum all proceedings should have been signalled to the Commissione centrale per il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato (central refugees commission) whose efficiency and quickness is very doubtful.
All proceedings were slowed down in times.
The Commission gave to all negative answers. In other words the commission considered that the emergency in Kosovo was over and therefore there are no good reasons to renew such humanitarian permits. Instructions are extremely clear.
Interested people asked for the renewal of papers not on humanitarian basis but on working basis since all conditions were answered.
Consolidated act art. 5 paragraph 5 states that: “residence papers and their renewal are rejected and, in case the permit is released it is revoked when requisites are missing unless new elements come to differently act”.
In other words when new elements allow to the release of papers – unless unchangeable administrative irregularities occur – evrything can be fixed. Paragraph 9 provides for that “Residence papers are released, renewed or turned in the applied for demands in case requisites and conditions exist according to consolidated act and its rules for the enactment”.
Administrative court sentences which we have already commented upon underlines that actual rules allow to the renewal on different basis of already released humanitarian papers when requisites are answered to. Administration should have evaluated the chance of releasing papers before denying them all After having studied each case. Administration duties obliged offices to consider all these matters.
The quoted above are some passages taken from Veneto TAR sentences, such as n. 493 January 16 2003 and n. 30025 May 4 2003. Other regional administrative courts sentences follow this same path, such as the Marche ones sentence n.950 August 8 2003.
Liguria TAR also added that “this same principle was stated by art. 3 excluding repatriation of migrant citizens holding requisites to have papers released on different from humanitarian basis”. This is the situation all interested ones live trhough.
I do not think that all those jurists should have been moved to express such a simple and clear interpretation.
What’s incredible is that police headquarters keep on applying their interpretation even though it is the one that finds no reference in law.
These are practical examples which show how hard it is to apply and work on laws when different interpretations occur.