I am writing from Vicenza. I am a Romanian citizen and I have had a valid residency permit for eleven years. My husband and I have applied for residency cards for us and our son who was born in Italy six years ago. We found out that our applications have been suspended because our home does not conform with the regional requirements of Veneto. Our house is 44,5 square meters and the minimum area required to obtain a certificate of occupancy valid for three people is 46 square meters.
We own our home and it will be impossible for us to move for the next five years. At police headquarters we were told that even though we have all the necessary requirements we cannot have residency cards because our home is not up to standard. At City Hall they refused to collaborate and told us to either rent another house for the 3-4 months it will take to get a certificate of occupancy or ask someone in our condominium to give us 2 square meters in comodatum.
Even though they have had our applications for a year, the police haven’t yet sent us a rejection notice. Please tell me what I can do. It seems unjust that people can work for years in Italy to save money and buy a house only to be told that their house is not suitable. We can live in our house for our whole lives with a residency permit but if we want a residency card we have to sell it, rent another house or beg for favors.
We know that the local USSL can issue a certificate of occupancy; when we applied to them they told us they couldn’t help us even if it is legally possible.
Is the law really the same for everyone?
Eagerly awaiting your reply. Kind regards.
According to the law, either the municipality or the ASL can issue a certificate of occupancy and on the basis of your note I don’t understand why the ASL refused to accept your application.
Unfortunately, the problem of suitable housing affects not only immigrants coming in through the quota system (article 3 comma 4 of the unified code on immigration), but also those who apply for a residency card and during immigration to reunite family members etc… In other words, while Italian and EC citizens have never been required obtain housing that is sufficiently comfortable, it is one of the requirements for non-EC nationals who want to live with their families and work legally here.
What must be emphasized here in regulatory terms is that article 9 of Unified Code on Immigration which regulates residency cards makes no reference to the availability of suitable housing. In fact, that article states, “Foreigners who have lived in the territory of the State for at least six years, who have been issued a type of residency permit which may be renewed an indeterminate number of times and who can demonstrate sufficient income to support themselves and their family members can ask the chief of police to issue a residency card for themselves, for their spouse and for their children under eighteen who are living with them. Residency cards have no expiration date.”
Even in this case it is the regulations for implementation that require the certificate of occupancy.
Article 16, comma 4, letter b of the regulations for implementation (presidential decree August 31, 1999 No. 394 as modified by presidential decree of October 18, 2004, No. 334) calls for, amongst other requisites to obtain a residency card, a certificate of occupancy as provided for in article 29 of the unified code on immigration; article 29, however, regulates a completely different area which is family reunification.
In other words, because the unified code on immigration requires demonstration of suitable lodgings for family reunification, it was deemed essential to add this requirement to the implementation regulations for application for a residency card.
In this case, because the child was born in Italy there was no need for family reunification. As a consequence, because the regulation for implementation includes requirements which are not included in the law, the regulation itself could be challenged as it exceeds its primary function of simply applying the law.
Some considerations on regional parameters
It is important to make some general observations on the regional laws regulating public housing. The fact that the law makes use of these parameters effectively condemns foreigners to submit to different evaluations and processes according to regional legislation.
A practical example; an apartment which according to the laws in Lazio is deemed suitable for four people according to the laws in Veneto would only be suitable for two. It is clear that depending on the region in which one lives, one is required to comply with more or less stringent requirements.
It is important to note that these parameters were originally adopted by the regions to regulate the construction of new public housing and not immigration; they were created to guarantee a minimum comfort level which, among other things, is rarely provided for those who end up living in these homes.
It is altogether different to use these parameters which were conceived to make future public housing more comfortable and then impose them as minimum requirements for people who rent or purchase existing housing to respect them.
These requirements have never been imposed on Italian or EC citizens. We should also consider that the minimum requirements for public housing are determined by national law; the parameters established by the regional laws may or may not respect the original national requirements.
In fact the regional laws refer to suitable housing according to various parameters but then consider other space requirements – less stringent ones – which take into account medium or high overcrowding.
What we need to understand is which criteria should be considered; should we apply the parameters for suitable housing (optimal comfort) or should we apply the parameters for medium or high overcrowding (which are used to create priority lists for assigning public housing).
Consider that numerous commune administrations have issued ordinances to local authorities to issue certificates of occupancy using parameters which are the same as those for medium overcrowding. In other words parameters which are less stringent and are more affordable.
Returning to the original query, the amazing thing is that in a commune somewhere in the province of Vicenza, the requirement for a couple with a small child is an area of 46 square meters and for a single square meter less, a certificate of occupancy is not issued while in that same province, far less stringent requirements are being implemented.
In a session of the communal commission of May 24, 2006 the communes of Azignano (no. 107) and Montecchio issued ordinances adopting parameters of “suitablilty” far more favourable than those established by the regional laws.
According to these communal criteria, a home must be 28 square meters for a single person, 38 square meters for two people and 42 square meters for three people. Therefore if this family were living in the commune of Azignano, a certificate of occupancy could be issued for three people as the apartment in question is larger than 42 square meters. According to these ordinances, if the family unit includes minors, for example if children are born after the family takes up residence in a home, the number of people in the family unit may increase by up to two and the same criteria will still apply. These criteria can also be modified, and housing suitable for two adults is deemed suitable for three minors. What is more, if children are born after the family has moved into a home and because of this the number of people living in that home exceeds the maximum number of residents allowed, a certificate of residency can be issued provided that it is shown (with a written attestation) that living conditions in the home are still suitable.
It seems absurd that a few kilometers’ distance can change the destiny of a family which has lived and worked legally for years in Italy and which asks for a residency card merely in order to avoid the long lines at police headquarters when renewing their residency permits.
It may be possibile to contest the rejection of the application for a certificate of occupancy because it is a measure which effects family union and can be submitted for verification to the judge where you are resident.
Ringraziamo Aran Nathanson per la traduzione dall’italiano