According to a decision published on March 7, the Constitutional court has ruled that it is within the constitution to issue tougher sentences to those who obtain residence permits by presenting forged documents.
Italy's Constitutional Court ruled on March 7, that the failure to provide in Italy's immigration law for a reduced sentence for those who only use a forged document to obtain a residence permit without having materially committed the forgery is not unconstitutional.
The issue at the center of the Court's sentence No. 27 had been raised by a preliminary investigations judge (GIP) in the northern city of Vicenza, the Constitutional Court said in a statement about the case.
Read AlsoMigration management 'fertile ground for crime,' says Meloni
Case of foreign citizen with forged document
The main trial concerned the case of a foreign citizen who had presented a forged certificate of proficiency in the Italian language to the central police department, in order to obtain a long-term residence permit for non-EU citizens.
During a fast-track trial, the preliminary investigations judge asked the Constitutional Court whether it was in fact legitimate for the immigration law to provide for a prison term of one to six years for both those who had materially forged the document and those who had only used it.
The GIP noted in the referral that the Italian criminal code generally provides for lighter sentences in forgery cases for those who only use a document that has been falsified by others.
According to the preliminary investigations judge, the harsher sentence for those who used a forged document provided for by the immigration law allegedly violated article 3 of the constitution, hindering the educational purpose of the term established by article 27 of the constitution.
Read AlsoItaly's work permit system: Migrant groups demand urgent reform
Doubts expressed by preliminary investigations judge unfounded, says Court
The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that the issue raised by the GIP was unfounded. In particular, it said that the constitution does not prevent the lawmaker from defining harsher punishments for forgeries committed in relation to immigration, as they affect the interest of the state and the orderly management of migration, it said.
Secondly, The Court observed that the simple use of a forged document to obtain a residence permit was not necessarily a less serious offense than falsifying the document itself.
Presenting a forged document to the police in order to obtain a stay permit implies aiding and abetting the act of forgery by providing personal data to those who materially committed it, the top court noted.
Moreover, a stay permit is granted to a person who has no right to obtain it only when such a document is presented to the authorities so forging a document is only a preparatory action ahead of its presentation to the police, it ruled.
The immigration law thus does not violate the principle of equality, nor the principle of proportionality between the penalty and the criminal sanction in place to ensure that a prison term has an educational purpose, according to the Constitutional Court.