I see a predominantly perivascular and periadnexal infiltrate of mixed CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, with scattered CD30+ larger cells. I am not able to see mitoses or cellular atypia; possibly they are present under the microscope. Was CD20 done? I would predict it would be positive. You might want to stain for mast cells, since the lesion is pruritic, but it is not strictly necessary. So far, I am not convinced of malignancy, but would suggest the possibility of an insect-bite-like reactive process, pending a CD20 stain. That said, this is a difficult area in dermatopathology, and I cannot claim to be an expert at it.

CD20 was not performed, but can easily be done. There is neither significant atypia nor mitoses.

Sorry for not attaching figure with CD20 staining. It was certainly done and the picture is now added.

CD20+ cells are there, but not as many as I expected. I am still not comfortable with calling this lymphoma, especially without mitoses, atypia, or epidermal involvement (although some cutaneous T cell lymphomas do not involve epidermis). The lesion doesn't seem destructive to me. TCR clonality might help, if one single clonal band is found. If it is oligoclonal or a single clonal band on a background of polyclonality, I don't think I would take it as a criterion of malignancy. In fact, I would probably not do TCR studies at all, since they will end up being confusing. I would diagnose this as atypical lymphoid infiltrate, with a wait-and-watch approach, local treatment, and rebiopsy if needed for expanding or worsening disease. Maybe that's what the dermatologists mean by chronic parapsoriasis; I'm not familiar with this term.

Do you know the size of the skin lesion and whether it was solitary or multiple?  
Histology is suggestive for tumor stage of mycosis fungoides with secondary CD30-expression or for CD30-positive large anaplastic T cell lymphoma of the skin (ask for history to differentiate as described above), however, you have to rule out extracutaneous involvement to confirm one of these diagnoses.

It is a solitary lesion and it was slightly reduced in its size. According to our dermatologist, it is now a small cutaneous reddish infiltrate.

Sorry for my last comment. The patient got diffuse infiltrations (up to 5 mm), particularly on his back followed by pruritus.  
Laboratory findings:  
nalazi su mu bez ostupanja  
SE 23, L 7,92; Ly 1,53-19,3%, Ne 5,4-68,1%  
Eo 0,187-2,36%, Mo 0,748-9,44%, Ba 0,06-0,76%

Thank you for the additional information.  
Short history (7 months) of solitary papules (up to 5 mm) rules out mycosis fungoides. With respect to papular and not nodular skin lesions, histology fits well with lymphomatoid papulosis, type A.

considering all the information, I would also agree with Dr. Schulze, that the lesion most probably represents lymphomatoid papulosis.