1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Italian Administrative judges deal
with immigration, rather then asylum claims. This is due to the
operating criteria of separation between civil judges’ and
administrative judges’ jurisdiction.
Asylum is a matter
concerning a status, a constitutional right, and, according to our
Constitution, status and rights belong to the province of civil
judges.
Administrative judges are, therefore, concerned
only with permits of stay such as work permits, study permits etc.,
except for family permits.
Family permits belong to the
civil courts because of a special provision in the law.[[ Article 30
Act n. 286/1998.]]
The compliance of this provision to
our constitution has been discussed by the Constitutional Court, but has
been positively confirmed, as far as these claims concern rights,
status, and not legitimate interests {(}not full rights{).
}Therefore
administrative courts' daily domestic cases have to do with residence
and employment permits and foreign workers regularizations.
These
claims more seldom involve directly EU directives or the provisions of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
Even expulsions orders do not belong to the Italian administrative courts’ judicial control.
Compared with other countries, Italian administrative courts have very limited jurisdiction on immigration claims.
Nevertheless,
it is possible to sort out interesting legal issues concerning
constitutional principles in administrative adjudications.
The main national legislative sources concerning immigrants are the following:
Legislative
Decree n. 286 of July 30th 1998 – Consolidated Text – entitled
“Immigration and alien status provisions”; “Supplemental rules to the
main provisions” in the Presidential Decree n. 394 of August 31st 1999 –
revised by Presidential Decree n. 334 of 2004: “Amendments to
immigration and asylum law” in Law 189 of July 30th 2002.
2. A RIGHT TO LEGAL AID OF INDIGENT ILLEGAL ALIENS
According
to the Article 24 of the Constitution (1948) “everyone has the right to
judicial remedy before a tribunal. To those lacking sufficient
resources a legal aid is provided in order to allow them access to an
effective judicial remedy and to defence before any court”.
This
is acknowledged as a due consequence of the right of each individual to
a due process, whether being a citizen or not.
No doubt
that, according to the Constitution, the right to defence belongs to
aliens as well as to citizens and in compliance to such a constitutional
principle the Italian state should provide means for legal aid also to
aliens when their income is below a certain level (corresponding
approximately to 10,000.00 euro per year).
These rights
are also set out in the Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental rights
of the European Union providing the right to an effective remedy and to a
fair trial.
According to the above mentioned provision,
“everyone (that means not only citizens) shall have the possibility of
being advised, defended and represented” and it also provides that
“legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient
resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access
to justice”.
Our legislation, however, will not provide
legal aid (that is a pleading free of charge for the indigent claimant)
to the illegal immigrant with regard to a claim concerning the denial of
a regularization application. An illegal immigrant would have legal aid
only if his grievance concerns an expulsion order but not if he/she
seeks judicial remedy for a regularization denial.
Having
detected such a violation of the above mentioned constitutional
principles the Administrative Regional Court of Umbria, in a recent case
concerning a third country national who had forwarded a claim against
the legalization refusal, submitted the issue to the Constitutional
Court with order n. 523 of March 2006.
The administrative
judges argued that the legal provision in force, according to Articles
119 and 142 of Presidential Decree 115/2002, regulating legal aid,
infringes the following constitutional principles:
equality before the law (Art. 3 of the Constitution)
a right to a due defence in a judicial proceeding (Art. 24 of the Constitution)
a right to judicial protection before the administrative courts (Art. 113 of the Constitution).
The
Regional Court also underlined that since the regularization proceeding
concerns only illegal immigrants and it is aimed to amnesty their
position, it is unreasonable to deny legal aid in such judicial
claims.
The other unreasonable aspects of such
regulation, highlighted by the Regional Court, is that the claimant will
have to wait the expulsion order to be able to forward a new claim
before an Italian court and he will be admitted to legal aid when he/she
no more needs it.
It is obvious that his/her claim
against the regularisation denial will be founded on different legal
reasons, notwithstanding the fact that the expulsion order will follow
automatically, since he/she was denied his/her residence permit. The
case is still pending before the Constitutional Court.
3. ILLEGAL RESTRICTIONS TO ALIEN WORKERS REGULARISATION IN THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT OF 2002
In
November 2003 the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardia, followed
by the Regional Court of Veneto in February 2004, submitted to the
Constitutional Court the case on constitutionality of Art. 1 of the Act
222 of 2002 providing that illegal alien workers cannot be regularised
if they have been notified in a police crime report.
The
censored law sets out emergency provisions concerning irregular alien
legalisation criteria and proceeding. This law applies only to illegal
immigrants who have been employed at least three months prior to the
entry in force of the law and who are declared within November 11th
2002.
Art. 1 states that those who could be according to
a police crime report held responsible for crimes for which the
national law allows arrest red-handed, are excluded from
legalisation.
This is a more restrictive requirement
compared with the operating rule for ordinary work permits or for other
kind of residence permits.
According to the Italian law, permits
can be denied to those who have been convicted by a tribunal, although
with a non-definitive decision, for a crime for which the Italian law
provides imprisonment and to those who constitute a danger to the
community or to the security of the state.
The Regional
Administrative Court for Lombardia argued that excluding from
legalisation an illegal immigrant only on the ground of a police report
violates the following constitutional rights: human fundamental rights;
Art. 3 of the Constitution - stating the right to equality before the
law; a police report cannot have such serious effects before a judge
has ascertained his responsibility; Art. 4 – stating the right to work;
Art. 27 – providing the presumption of innocence; Art. 111 – providing
the right to a due process.
The national decisions do not mention
the European provisions in which the same rights are set out. The same
principles are stated in the following articles of the European Union
Charter of Fundamental and they regard “Everyone”, since they are not
referred only to citizens: Art. 20 – Everyone is equal before the law;
Art. 47 – right to an effective remedy before a tribunal; Art. 48 –
everyone’s presumption of innocence and right to defence.
Together with the administrative courts, two civil courts had raised the same legal issue.
In
February 2005, the Constitutional Court (n. 78/2005) has agreed with
the objections and has ruled on the constitutional illegality with
respect to the principle of equality or, more precisely, of
reasonableness of the charged law provision, where the legislation
allows the automatic denial of a regularisation application because of
the existence of a police crime report concerning the applicant.
The Constitutional Court agreed with the administrative trial
courts in considering unreasonable the automatic denial of the alien’s
regularisation instance whenever a police crime report has mentioned the
applicant. A police report, argues the Constitutional Court, does not
contain any legal proof with regard to the guilt of the alien, nor an
individual can be considered dangerous simply on the ground of a police
report.
On the same premises the Administrative Court of Sicily
with a previous finding [[ Catania, Section II, 12 February 2004 n.
204.]] has voided the denial of a regularisation instance based on the
circumstance that the alien had been reported by the police for a
crime.
The Sicilian Court has anticipated the
Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the law deeming that the only
correct interpretation of the law, according to Article 3 and 27 of the
Constitution, i.e. of the principle of equality and of the presumption
of innocence, excluded that a mere police crime report could justify the
rejection of the alien’s regularisation instance.
The
Administrative Court for Sicily has deemed illogical and unreasonable
the provision of a police report, lacking any judicial verification,
sufficient to paralyse the request for regularisation. In particular,
the law cannot provide that an alien will receive its work permit only
because he was so lucky to have his police crime report received by a
judge who ascertained his innocence in due time while another could have
to wait months to get rid of such an impediment and will have his
request rejected only due to mere chance.
Although the
finding of the administrative court can be deemed blameable, under a
strictly procedural point of view, since a trial court should not avoid
application of a clear rule of law, although deemed contrary to
Constitution, but it should raise the constitutional illegitimacy issue
before the Constitutional Court, all the same, it is significant how
the administrative judge is ready to consent to an interpretation of the
law provision in accordance to the fundamental principles.
LEGITIMATE RESTRICTION TO ALIEN WORKERS REGULARISATION
In
January 2006 the Constitutional Court has rejected other objections,
raised by three regional administrative courts concerning again the Art.
1 of the Act n. 222/2002.
This time the administrative
judges censor the provision according to which illegal alien workers who
have received an expulsion order to be performed by police and that,
therefore, cannot be revoked are denied legalisation.
The
same issue had been also forwarded by the administrative judge of
Appeal, the Council of State.[[ Decision of April 2005 of the IV
Section, n. 1706/2005.]]The first instance judge had not considered the
constitutional compliance of the rule sufficiently grounded and had
rejected the claim.
The judges argue that this provision
treats in the same way very different positions and therefore violates
Art. 3 of the Constitution, i.e. the principle of equality and of
reasonableness.
Such opinion is based on the
circumstance that an alien, reached by an expulsion order to be
performed by police is denied the possibility of regularisation even
though he/she might be able to demonstrate to be socially integrated,
at the same way as the illegal alien who has committed a crime and has
been therefore expelled. This is the argument of the Council of
State.
An illegal immigrant reached by an expulsion
order, because he/she did not leave the state at the prescribed time or
because he/she entered without documents, without committing any crime,
is treated in the same way as an illegal alien who represents a danger
to the community.
In addition, according to the above-mentioned
legal provision an illegal alien who has asked for legalisation before
the dead-line of his expulsion order will obtain his work permit, while
the one who has accomplished the order will not.
This time the
Constitutional Court has rejected the objections stating that the
expulsion order to be performed by police is now generally applied to
all illegal immigrants, except only for those whose permit has expired,
and that the different positions are merely factual and the law can
therefore legitimately provide such exclusion.
The
Constitutional Court found it reasonable to exclude from legalisation
those illegal aliens who are due to leave the country escorted to the
border by police, whatever the reason is for the issue of the expulsion
order.
A compliance to constitutional principles of the legal
provision examined by the Constitutional Court had been already stated
by the Administrative Court of Puglia (n. 222/2005). The first instance
judges deemed absolutely not grounded the argument stating the violation
of the principle of equality before the law. They argued that there is
no similarity between the situation of an alien who has received an
expulsion order not to be performed by the police and the alien who is
due to leave escorted by police. The judges of the Administrative Court
of Puglia, therefore, examined this issue, evaluated the hypothetical
situations offered by the claimant’s defence and adjudicated that the
legal provision is absolutely reasonable. So doing, they anticipated the
opinion of the Constitutional Court.
LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR RESIDENCE PERMIT DENIAL
According
to Art. 4 and Art. 5 of the Consolidated Text of 1998, containing
provisions on immigration and alien status, an alien who has been
convicted for a crime is not given any stay permit and, if he/she
already has one, it must be revoked.
The amendments
introduced by the Act n. 189 from 2002 provides that even those who
have negotiated their sentence are automatically excluded with no need,
not even for them, to ascertain that they constitute a danger for the
community.
According to the Italian law, a negotiated
sentence is issued with no verification at all of the criminal
responsibility and applies only to minor crimes (Article 444 of the
Italian Criminal Procedure Code).
On these grounds, the
Administrative Court of Lombardia has objected that the provision that
denies work permit to an alien who has been convicted with a negotiated
sentence violates the constitutional principles set out in articles 3,
27 and 35 (which concern equality before the law), right to work and the
presumption of innocence.
The Administrative court
objects to the automatic effect of such a sentence prior to any
verification of the danger that such an individual may represent for the
community.
The Constitutional Court in this occasion could not
accept the objections because of a procedural obstacle linked to the
insufficient argumentation on the relevance of the issue in the
particular case. The case actually related to an alien worker who
negotiated his sentence before the entry in force of the criticised
provision.
Some administrative courts in these cases
have stated that the provision is not applicable to those who have been
convicted by a negotiated sentence before the entry in force of the
above -mentioned provision.[[ Administrative Court of Tuscany
Section I n. 2303/2003 and 1287/2003.]]
This option has
been chosen, in certain cases, on the grounds of a principle that
applies to criminal law. This principle states that the law provides
only for the future and that no one can be held guilty on account of any
act which did not constitute a criminal offence under national law at
the time when it was committed.[[ Administrative Court of Abruzzo –
Section of Pescara n. 1102/2003.]]
Obviously, this does
not perfectly fit to the circumstances of administrative cases, since
there is no criminal punishment in these cases, but of an administrative
allowance which is denied according to the law in force at the time of
the request.
Other courts have argued that the mandatory
nature of this impediment for those aliens who have negotiated their
conviction before the entry in force of the new rule violates the
principle of the legitimate expectations. Therefore, in these cases no
automatic denial is legitimate. The administrative authority should
always ascertain if the alien is a dangerous individual on more
extensive grounds.[[ Administrative Court of Emilia Romagna n.
277/2003 and Adm. Court of Lombardia n. 478/2004.]]
According to
these findings the administrative authority cannot presume that an
alien is a danger for the community if he/she has accepted a negotiation
in a criminal proceeding at a time when such cause of permit denial
was not yet introduced by the law.
The amendments set out
in the above mentioned Act n. 189 of 2002 introduced some restrictions,
binding the refusal to certain conditions such as conviction for
serious crimes, even if the sentence has been negotiated, and,
consequently, eliminating discretion in the activity of immigration
authorities. The majority of permit denials are now bound, that is, they
are strictly linked to certain conditions.
Some administrative
courts have, nevertheless, softened the restriction effects by stating
that if a criminal sentence for the crimes for which 2002 Act provides
automatic denial has been issued before the entry in force of the Act,
it should not be applicable. [[ See: Case of the Adm. Court of
Friuli Venezia Giulia n. 24/2005 and case N. 242/2006 and n. 107/2006
of the Administrative Court of Trentino Alto Adige. ]]
That
means that the police authority before refusing a permit will have to
consider other circumstances and explain the reason why the alien is to
be considered a danger for the community. The circumstances that will
have to be evaluated are: the seriousness of the crime committed, the
entity of the penalty (i.e. its heaviness), the social alarm that the
alien’s behaviour has raised, the personality as a whole of the
applicant.
Once again some administrative judge have
applied the principle of legitimate expectations in order to avoid that a
restrictive provision could be applied to the situations in the period
when no such restrictions existed.
Others have deemed the
new legal restrictions introduced in 2002 applicable also to aliens
convicted on the basis of judgements prior to the entry in force of the
law. They argued that the principle of legality according to which the
law can provide only for the future applies only to criminal
punishments and not to the effects of a criminal sentence on different
benefits. These arguments are set out in Adjudication n. 1367/2006 of
the Administrative Court of Sicily – Section II.
The
Administrative Court of Puglia[[ Case n. 4467/2006.]] has stated
that permit denial because of a crime, provided as hindering, by the law
after it has been committed, is illegitimate. The Court considers
unreasonable to deny a permit on the grounds of a crime which would not
have affected the alien’s possibility to obtain a stay permit at the
time when it was committed. The negative consequences of his actions
could not be foreseen by the alien and therefore could not determine his
behaviour.
This is an even stronger statement ensuing
from the principle of legality which does not find a great consent among
the administrative judges.
As we said the principle
according to which law can provide only for the future applies only to
the criminal punishment and not to all sorts of disputes.
6. THE EFFECT OF AN ALERT IN THE SCHENGEN INFORMATION SYSTEM ON ALIEN'S APPLICATION FOR REGULARISATION
The
Act n. 222/2002 excludes from legalisation those aliens that are
mentioned in an alert, on the basis of international conventions or
agreements.
The applicants request will be necessarily
rejected in these cases. It is a fettered decision according to the
above cited legal provision.
The administrative courts
have therefore deemed legal the denial of regularisation to an alien who
had been mentioned in an alert of the Schengen Information System and
have stated that the Police Authority had no obligation to ask for more
detailed information, since the alert is a dominant cause of exclusion
whatever the reason for the alert is.[[ Case n. 1019 april 2005
Section II, Administrative Court of Piemonte; case n. 255/2005 Section I
Adm. Court of Lombardia and case. n. 323/2006 Adm. Court of Umbria.]]
There is no discretion in denying regularisation to an
alien alerted on the grounds of the Schengen’s Treaty. Therefore, they
don’t have to give any particular or additional motivation to their
decrees. [[ Administrative Court of Friuli- Venezia Giulia n.
126/2005.]] The only motivation needed in the refusal decree is a
mention of the existence of the Schengen’s system alert and of the law
provision applied.[[ Adm. Court of Emilia Romagna, case. n.
1572/2006.]]
It is perfectly legal to deny
regularisation to an alien who has been already been expelled by one of
the States joining in the Schengen’s Treaty on an automatic basis, that
is without considering other circumstance. This opinion of the
Administrative Court of Lazio[[ Case. n. 5633/2005.]] is based on
the fact that the Italian law can provide a different rule only for
expulsion orders issued by Italian authorities.
For the
expulsion orders issued by Italian police authority, the national law
can provide legalisation if the order is revoked, while as for the
expulsion order of another country the different regime does not allow
to take into consideration the revocation or ending of such order.
In the case examined by the Administrative Court of Lazio the
claimant had obtained by another national authority the expiration of
the expulsion order. All the same, the Administrative Court of Lazio
did not consider such element and confirmed the legality of the
legalization denial.
Similarly, the Administrative Court
of Umbria rejected the claim of an alien who had been refused residence
permit because he had been expelled by a State joining the Schengen’s
Agreement in force in Italy by the Act n. 388/1993.[[ Case n.
675/2005.]]
In another case, the Administrative Court
of Piemonte held a very different position. The judge considered
illegal the denial of regularisation of an alien who had been alerted as
non-admissible in the Schengen’s Area, only because the challenged
decree did not mention the State, which issued the alert and the acts
grounding such alert .[[ Case n. 3580/2004.]]
A
different position was also held by the Administrative Court of Trentino
Alto adige.[[ Case n. 271/2006. ]] In that judgment judges deem
illegal to refuse a residence permit only because an alien is mentioned
in a Schengen’s alert system. The Police Authority should interview the
authorities of the State which made the alert note and take into
consideration the reason of such alert in order to evaluate if they
exclude permit allowance, according to Italian law, as well as other
particular circumstances relating to the applicant personal situation.
The same opinion was expressed in case n. 2662/2005 of Adm. Court of
Puglia – Section of Lecce and in case n. 1097/2003 of the
Administrative Court of Emilia Romagna Section I.