This YouTube video documents an altercation in an Italian hotel:

Italian Police have forced an elderly Hotel owner in Ficarolo (Rovigo) to house and provide for fifteen African illegal Immigrants on his property against his will. The footage, released by the Italian news outlet Servizio Repubblico, documents the desperate attempts of Luigi Fogli as he blocks his door to protect his Hotel.


The owner previously made an agreement with the government to house genuine war refugees for fair compensation as his business is in crisis.

When he was denied both fair compensation at just 7€ per migrant per day and was to receive 50 African males rather than Syrian families, he tried to bail out of the contract but couldn't.

It links to Servizio Repubblico as the source.

This news is being shared around a number of "alternative" right wing internet news outlets (e.g. InfoWars), which do not seem too reliable.

  • 5
    I'd appreciate if the answer could confirm whether these people were actually "illegal immigrants" rather than, as I strongly suspect, asylum seekers/refugees.
    – Oddthinking
    Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 0:51
  • 4
    Why are you skeptical that an Italian hotel owner was forced to abide to a contract he made?
    – daraos
    Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 6:23
  • 3
    @daraos It sounds like he was willing to accept families, not a bunch of single males that are almost certainly economic migrants, not refugees. Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 9:34
  • 2
    Reading that Italian article it says: 1) The owner asked information about how to house immigrants, but never signed a contract because he discovered that he'd receive only 7€ per day per migrant. 2) The prefecture confiscated the hotel because it needed place to put this migrants. 3) the article says these are asylum seekers migrants, not just "random illegal immigrants"
    – Bakuriu
    Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 10:07
  • 2
    Here's a page from ANSA that never mentions any contract signed by the owner, and does mention the fact that the hotel was confiscated. This other page mentions the confiscation but never mentions any formal contract signed by the owner.
    – Bakuriu
    Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 10:14

1 Answer 1


The hotel was seized (requisitioned) by the local government.

This was not the first hotel to be seized. Profughi, il prefetto requisisce un hotel explains that an 1865 law provides for the seizure of property per "gravi e urgenti necessità pubbliche" [grave and urgent public necessity]. The article explains that l’hotel Cristallo , a 4-star hotel, was seized by the government to house migrants earlier. See also Profughi ospiti in hotel, scoppia la bufera politica

(A more complete quotation of the relevant law is "Quando ricorrono gravi e urgenti necessità pubbliche, militari o civili, può essere disposta la requisizione dei beni mobili o immobili. Al proprietario è dovuta una giusta indennità." [In the case of serious and urgent public need, military or civilian, seizure of movable or immovable property may be ordered. The owner is due a fair allowance])

Rovigo, requisito albergo per i migranti. A Padova i profughi aggrediscono cameriera explains that the hotel in the OP was similarly seized by the municipality under such authority. This article also confirms Luigi Fogli is the owner.

According to the above article, the statement in the OP "he tried to bail out of the contract" is false. He merely requested information concerning receiving immigrants, and was offered 8 euros per person. No agreement was reached and the government instead seized his hotel.

Several terms are used for the people relocated to the hotel, "richiedenti asilo" [asylum seekers] (mayor's term), "immigrati" [immigrants] (hotel owner's term), "migrati" [migrants], and "profughi" [refugees].

  • Thanks a lot. Any information with regards to how long the hotel was confiscated for and what sort of compensation (if any) is the owner entitled to? Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 17:20
  • 1
    @PinkandFloyd November through April "La prefettura ha infatti requisito la struttura con un 'atto di pubblica utilità' da oggi fino ad aprile".
    – DavePhD
    Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 17:36
  • 1
    @PinkandFloyd I don't know about amount, but I added to the answer the next sentence of the relevant law "Al proprietario è dovuta una giusta indennità" [The owner is due a fair allowance]
    – DavePhD
    Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 17:39
  • 4
    "Confiscated" generally means taken as a penalty without compensation. "Requisitioned" might be a better word. The ECHR guarantees the right to quiet enjoyment of property, but governments can take property with compensation, just as with eminent domain in the USA. Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 20:43
  • @PaulJohnson you're probably right, the Italian is "requisizione "
    – DavePhD
    Commented Nov 21, 2016 at 20:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .