Supreme Court Criminal Section No. 16444/2025: Apparent Reasoning in the Validation of Alien Detention

The judgment of the Supreme Court, First Criminal Section, No. 16444 of April 28, 2025 (filed April 30, 2025), revisits a sensitive issue: judicial review of administrative detention of foreign citizens under Decree-Law 145/2024, converted into Law 187/2024. The Justice of the Peace of Caltanissetta had validated the Quaestor's decree without a genuine verification of its reasoning. The Supreme Court, upholding the appeal of the interested party, quashes and remands, emphasizing the need for effective reasoning, under penalty of appeal pursuant to Article 606, paragraph 1, letters b) and c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Regulatory Framework after Decree-Law 145/2024

The 2024 security and immigration package has profoundly impacted Article 14 of the Consolidated Law on Immigration, expanding the grounds for detention in Retention Centres. However, Article 13 of the Constitution and Article 5 of the ECHR require that any restriction of personal liberty be ordered and supervised by an independent judicial authority. The Justice of the Peace, called upon to validate the Quaestor's decree within 48 hours, cannot limit themselves to a formal ratification: they must weigh factual and legal elements, also in light of the ECtHR's guidelines (recall the rulings Saadi v. the United Kingdom and Khlaifia v. Italy).

The Court's Ruling and its Meaning

In matters of administrative detention of foreign nationals under the procedural regime following Decree-Law of October 11, 2024, No. 145, converted, with amendments, by Law of December 9, 2024, No. 187, the decision of the Justice of the Peace that validates the detention decree without validating and verifying the reasons stated by the Quaestor is vitiated by apparent reasoning, which can be challenged in cassation proceedings pursuant to Article 606, paragraph 1, letters b) and c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Comment: the Court stigmatizes the practice, still widespread, of automatically validating the detention of foreigners. "Apparent reasoning" occurs when the judge merely reproduces the Quaestor's decree or uses standard phrases ("deemed lawful"), without actual scrutiny. In such cases, the decision is appealable for violation of law and defect of reasoning, with the remedies provided by Article 606 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Role of the Justice of the Peace and the Review of Reasoning

The ruling emphasizes three aspects:

• Duty of Verification: the judge must ascertain the existence of the prerequisites (uncertain identity, risk of flight, obstacles to return) and provide reasoning for the grounds stated by the Quaestor.
• Effective Adversarial Proceedings: the foreigner, assisted by legal counsel, has the right to present their arguments; the decree's silence on these submissions constitutes a defect of reasoning.
• Legality Review: in case of apparent reasoning, an appeal to the Supreme Court is the appropriate remedy, allowing for the assertion of both the violation of Article 13 of the Constitution and the defect under Article 606, letters b) and c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Practical Implications for Lawyers and Operators

Lawyers assisting foreign nationals must:

• request a full copy of the Quaestor's file;
• promptly raise objections regarding the lack of reasoning;
• document any personal vulnerabilities (minors, refugee status, victims of trafficking) in light of EU Directives 33/2013 and 115/2008;
• consider an appeal to the Supreme Court, specifically indicating the defect of "apparent reasoning."

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court thus consolidates an orientation already emerged with judgments Nos. 9556/2025 and 2967/2025, aimed at strengthening the substantive guarantees of personal liberty.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16444/2025 reiterates that the detention of a foreigner cannot become an automatic measure. The Justice of the Peace is required to provide concrete and individualized reasoning, under penalty of annulment by the Supreme Court. This serves as a stern warning that the protection of public safety must coexist with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and the ECHR.