Residence Permit for Medical Treatment and Conversion to Work
Impossible d'ajouter des articles
Désolé, nous ne sommes pas en mesure d'ajouter l'article car votre panier est déjà plein.
Veuillez réessayer plus tard
Veuillez réessayer plus tard
Échec de l’élimination de la liste d'envies.
Veuillez réessayer plus tard
Impossible de suivre le podcast
Impossible de ne plus suivre le podcast
Residence Permit for Medical Treatment and Conversion to Work
-
Lu par :
-
De :
À propos de ce contenu audio
This is a new episode of the podcast Immigration Law. Today we discuss a decision of major practical relevance for anyone dealing with residence permits and, in particular, with conversions for employment purposes. I am referring to judgment number 58 of 2026, published on 20 January 2026, by the Regional Administrative Court for Liguria, which annulled a measure adopted by the Genoa Police Headquarters that had declared inadmissible an application to convert a residence permit for medical treatment into a residence permit for subordinate employment. The case is emblematic. The foreign national had applied for a residence permit for medical treatment before the entry into force of the so-called Cutro Decree, had subsequently obtained an open-ended employment contract, and had applied for conversion of the permit. The Police Headquarters rejected the request, arguing that, following the 2023 reform, residence permits for medical treatment were no longer among those eligible for conversion. The Court overturned this approach, clearly recalling the transitional regime set out in Article 7 of Decree-Law number 20 of 2023. According to the Court, what matters is not the date on which the conversion application is submitted, but the date on which the original application for the residence permit for medical treatment was filed. If that original application predates the entry into force of the reform, the previous legal framework continues to apply, including the possibility of conversion for employment purposes. This is a crucial point, as it protects the legitimate expectations of the foreign national and prevents unreasonable consequences arising from administrative delays or overly restrictive interpretations adopted by the authorities. The judgment also clarifies another issue frequently used by the administration as a ground for rejection: the alleged lateness of the conversion application. The Court reiterates that applications for renewal or conversion of a residence permit are not subject to a strict forfeiture deadline, in line with well-established case law. Once again, this reasoning undermines administrative practices that continue to generate unlawful rejections and archival decisions. This ruling fits within a now consolidated line of case law that reaffirms the binding nature of the transitional regime and limits the role of internal administrative circulars when they conflict with statutory law and with the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty. It is a decision that provides solid arguments for litigation and confirms the role of administrative courts in rebalancing excessively restrictive approaches adopted by the public administration. If you would like to explore these issues further, you can read my articles on my blogs, listen to other episodes of the Immigration Law podcast, or follow me on my YouTube and TikTok channels.
Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.
Vous êtes membre Amazon Prime ?
Bénéficiez automatiquement de 2 livres audio offerts.Bonne écoute !
Aucun commentaire pour le moment