During 2024, the issue of immigration continued to occupy a central position in the Italian political, legal, and social debate. In this context, case law played an important role in defining the limits of administrative action and in strengthening procedural and substantive safeguards for the protection of migrants. The courts, both national and European, intervened to clarify the conditions that legitimise expulsion and the refusal of entry, the criteria for designating safe countries of origin, and the conditions of detention in pre-removal detention centres. In parallel, the centrality of the protection of the foreign national’s private and family life—recognised by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and by Legislative Decree no. 286/1998, the Consolidated Immigration Act (TUI)—was reaffirmed, together with the principle of non-refoulement in the presence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Case law also addressed significant issues concerning citizenship and family reunification, emphasising the authenticity of affective ties, the principle of social integration, and the protection of family unity.

Expulsion and refusal of entry

The Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, judgment of 19 December 2024, no. 33398, recognised the power of the ordinary court to assess the actual safety of the country of origin of an asylum seeker whose application for protection has been rejected, even where that country is included in the list of safe countries. The judge may therefore disapply the ministerial expulsion decree if the concrete situation in the country of destination proves incompatible with human rights protection standards. Similarly, in order no. In 34898/2024, the Court of Cassation held that, in accelerated border procedures, the judge responsible for validation must conduct an effective, not merely formal, review of the designation of a country as safe, especially where the personal liberty of a foreign national is at stake.

In this way, the Court of Cassation incorporates certain recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). With regard to “safe countries of origin”, the CJEU (Case C-406/22) clarified that the designation of a third country as safe must concern the entirety of its national territory; it is not permissible to exclude specific geographical areas, such as Transnistria in the case of Moldova examined by the Court. Moreover, where the country of destination applies derogations from the ECHR, in situations of national emergency, the authorities of the State intending to proceed with expulsion must carefully verify whether such derogations undermine the effectiveness of the protection of fundamental rights, failing which the procedure is invalid. It should be noted that European case law has also imposed stringent restrictions on transfer and return procedures between EU Member States. The CJEU (Case C-392/22) examined the case of an asylum seeker transferred under the Dublin Regulation from the Netherlands to Poland. The Court held that, notwithstanding the principle of mutual trust between Member States, a transfer to another EU country must be suspended where there are serious and substantiated grounds for believing that the applicant may be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment, prohibited by Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Such a risk materialises where the individual is likely to find himself in a situation of extreme material deprivation in the receiving State. The authorities of the transferring State must cooperate in establishing the facts and, where necessary, seek specific individual guarantees.

From the perspective of procedural safeguards, case law during 2024 strengthened the foreign national’s right of defence. By order of 5 February 2024, no. 3282, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, declared null and void an expulsion decree translated exclusively into a vehicular language, since neither the actual knowledge of that language by the recipient nor the impossibility of finding a translator in his or her mother tongue had been demonstrated. By order of the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, of 28 December 2024, no. 34717, the nullity of the proceedings was instead recognised where the hearing had not been notified to defence counsel, thereby violating the right of defence.

Further judicial clarifications concerned the grounds for expulsion and the correct application of the provisions of the Consolidated Immigration Act. By order of 3 April 2024, no. 8861, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, distinguished between irregular entry and evasion of border controls. The Court specified that evasion of controls occurs only where the foreign national completely avoids the checks carried out by the authorities. Where, by contrast, border controls have been carried out, even if incompletely, evasion cannot be established. In such cases, only the lack of a valid residence permit may be relevant.

By judgment of 23 May 2024, no. 14396, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, clarified that the order to leave the territory is not autonomously challengeable separately from the expulsion decree. This is because the order, in itself, does not directly affect the foreign national’s personal liberty, unless it is accompanied by coercive measures. A review of its lawfulness, nonetheless, remains possible before the criminal court in the event of non-compliance with the order.

As regards the duration of the re-entry ban, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, by order of 10 September 2024, no. 24243, reiterated that it may not exceed five years, except in exceptional cases provided by law. The administration must provide specific reasoning for any longer duration, with reference to the foreign national’s current social dangerousness and the concrete circumstances of the case. In the absence of an individualised assessment, the re-entry ban is unlawful.

With respect to the limits on expulsion, the protection of fundamental rights and family unity is of central importance. Expulsion is prohibited where serious psychophysical conditions or illnesses would suffer serious prejudice in the event of return. The assessment must be carried out at the time the measure is adopted and is independent of any prior criminal convictions, which cannot prevail over the foreign national’s right to health (Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, order of 13 September 2024, no. 24577).

Similar protection is recognised in situations of armed conflict. By order of 14 February 2024, no. 4041, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, clarified that the prohibition of expulsion under Article 19 of the Consolidated Immigration Act also applies where the risk to personal safety arises from supervening circumstances, such as an ongoing war. In particular, the conflict in Ukraine was considered a situation capable of preventing the foreign national's return, in order to safeguard his personal security.

With regard to family ties, expulsion is precluded for foreign nationals cohabiting with Italian relatives within the second degree (Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, order of 8 August 2024, no. 22540), except for reasons of public order. However, the protection afforded by Article 8 ECHR and Article 19 TUI is not automatic, but requires verification of authentic, genuine, and stable ties. The Court specified that cohabitation must take the form of an effective sharing of daily life; therefore, mere joint custody of a minor child, in the absence of cohabitation, is not sufficient to prevent expulsion (Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, order of 26 June 2024, no. 17551). Furthermore, protection is excluded where the family relationship is based on repeated falsehoods concerning personal identity or the foreign national’s past, or where there is no real social integration, understood as compliance with the fundamental rules of the host community (Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, order of 11 October 2024, no. 29125). By order of 5 March 2024, no. 5803, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, reiterated that the judge must carry out a concrete assessment of the nature of family ties, the length of stay in Italy, and the degree of social integration of the foreign national, avoiding automatic decisions based solely on formal criteria.

Citizenship

In the field of citizenship, case law has provided clarification on both the acquisition of citizenship by descent (iure sanguinis) and the granting of citizenship by naturalisation. As concerns iure sanguinis citizenship, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, in its judgment of 16 May 2024, no. 13663, addressed the issue of the so-called Brazilian “great naturalisation” of 1889, which automatically conferred Brazilian citizenship on resident foreigners unless they opted to renounce it. The Court clarified that the loss of Italian citizenship cannot occur automatically or tacitly, but requires a voluntary and conscious act of acquisition of foreign citizenship, accompanied by an express renunciation of Italian citizenship. Mere residence abroad or the application of generalised naturalisation measures is not sufficient to result in the loss of Italian citizenship. The burden of proving the ancestor’s voluntary naturalisation lies with the administration challenging the status civitatis, whereas the applicant is only required to prove their descent from an Italian citizen.

Residence permit for family reasons

The legal framework governing residence permits for family reasons, as set out in Legislative Decree no. 30 of 2007, is intended to safeguard the family unity of EU citizens, including non-EU family members. Case law has progressively emphasised the substantive nature of affective ties over purely formal requirements, placing the effectiveness of the family relationship at the centre of judicial assessment. In particular, the Italian Court of Cassation, in judgment of 24 April 2024, no. 11033, clarified that cohabitation between an Italian citizen and a foreign family member does not have to be proven exclusively by means of population registry certification. The judge may ascertain the existence of the family relationship through other means of evidence, including witness testimony, provided that such evidence is capable of demonstrating a stable and genuine relationship. Moreover, in Civil Cassation, Section I,  order of 14 May 2024, no. 13189, the Court specified that the issuance of a residence permit to the non-EU spouse of an Italian citizen does not necessarily presuppose either actual cohabitation or a prior lawful stay in Italy. The only real limitation is the sham nature of the marriage: the permit may be refused solely where it is established that the marital bond was entered into exclusively for the purpose of obtaining immigration-related advantages.

With regard to family reunification with other relatives, Civil Cassation, Section I, order of 28 October 2024,  no. 27772 provided a broad interpretation of Article 3 of Legislative Decree no. 30/2007, clarifying that the requirements of “cohabitation” and “being dependent” are not cumulative and therefore do not both need to be satisfied. They are alternative in nature and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the applicant’s personal and economic circumstances, including those in the country of origin. Further clarifications were provided by Civil Cassation, sect. I  judgment 28 October 2024, no. 27764 concerning the recognition of foreign guardianship measures. The Court held that such measures may also have effects in Italy for the purposes of family reunification, provided that they comply with the criteria set out in Italian law for the recognition of foreign decisions. With reference to residence permits based on “serious reasons” connected with the psychophysical development of a minor, the Court of Cassation, Section I, order of 21 December 2024, no. 33725, specified that a generic reference to the distress resulting from family separation is not sufficient. It is necessary to demonstrate the existence of objectively serious situations capable of seriously jeopardising the minor’s equilibrium and which cannot be avoided by means other than the granting of the residence permit to the concerned adult. An important clarification was also provided at the procedural level regarding territorial jurisdiction. In judgment of 9 July 2024, no. 18773, the Court of Cassation sect. I established that disputes concerning the recognition of the right of residence for family reasons and entry visas, arising after the 2017 reforms, fall within the jurisdiction of the specialised immigration sections. More specifically, the Court clarified that jurisdiction is vested in the Tribunal within whose district the authority that issued the contested measure is located; consequently, for appeals against visa refusals issued by consular authorities, exclusive jurisdiction lies with the specialised section of the Tribunal of Rome. This is because consular offices constitute peripheral branches of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whose central seat is in the capital.

Criminal profiles of immigration

The so-called “crime of illegal entry and stay”, provided for under Article 10-bis of the Consolidated Immigration Act (TUI), punishes irregular entry into and stay within the territory of the State. Over the years, this offence has been the subject of numerous criticisms, as it has been considered disproportionate and ineffective. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court, in judgment no. 88/2024, confirmed the constitutionality of the provision, rejecting the question of unconstitutionality raised in relation to a provision of Legislative Decree no. 8/2016, which had decriminalised several minor offences. According to the Court, the legislature clearly expressed its intention to maintain the criminal relevance of the offence of illegal entry and stay, particularly in relation to violations of administrative measures in the field of immigration. Consequently, irregular entry into and residence in Italy continue to constitute criminal offences, confirming the legal system's restrictive approach to controlling migration flows.

With regard to the offence of aiding and abetting illegal immigration, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, in its judgment of 19 December 2024, no. 5177, clarified the requirements for the recognition of the mitigating circumstance of cooperation with State authorities, provided for under Article 12(3-quinquies) TUI. The Court held that a generic attitude of repentance is not sufficient, nor is a mere confession or the provision of marginal information. Rather, the defendant must provide concrete, genuine and effective cooperation that is useful to the investigations and capable of contributing to the reconstruction of the facts and the identification of those responsible. The assessment must be carried out taking into account the defendant’s knowledge base and the actual usefulness of the information provided.

A particularly delicate issue concerns the expulsion of a foreign national ordered as an alternative measure to detention. The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, judgment of 7 November 2024, no. 43082, held that such a measure cannot be applied where it entails a disproportionate interference with the individual’s private and family life, in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. The Court specified that, even after the legislative amendments introduced in 2023, expulsion cannot be ordered automatically, but requires a concrete assessment of the foreign national’s personal and family situation. The State’s interest in removal must be balanced against the right to respect for family life, particularly where the foreign national has stable ties within the Italian territory.

In relation to the exploitation of irregular foreign workers, the Court of Genoa, in its judgment of 12 September 2024, no. 2303, held that, although the lack of lawful residence status of the worker and the defendant’s status as an employer had been established, proof of the subjective element of the offence is still required. In particular, it must be demonstrated that the employer was aware of the foreign worker's irregular status. In the case examined, the defendant was acquitted because he was unaware that the employee’s residence permit application had been rejected. In line with this approach, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, judgment of 17 January 2024, no. 9421, clarified that liability for the offence of employing irregular foreign workers also extends to those who, although not having formally hired them, make use of their labour services while exercising de facto authority over them.

The offence of unauthorised re-entry into the territory of the State is provided for under Article 13(13-bis) TUI and punishes the foreign national who re-enters Italy after having been expelled. The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Section I, judgment of 28 June 2024, no. 37860, clarified an important aspect concerning the legal status of the individual. According to the Court, what is relevant for the purposes of constituting the offence is that the person held the status of a foreign national at the time the expulsion order was issued. It is not necessary for that status to persist at the time of the subsequent re-entry into Italian territory. In the case at issue, the individual had acquired the citizenship of an EU Member State after the expulsion, but before re-entering Italy. Despite this, the Court held that the offence was established because the expulsion had been lawfully ordered while the person concerned was still a non-EU national.