Unjust Detention: The Court of Cassation and the Right to Compensation (Judgment no. 18446/2025)

The judicial system can sometimes lead to unjust deprivations of liberty. To protect fundamental rights, our legal system provides for compensation for unjust detention. The recent Judgment no. 18446 of May 16, 2025, by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. A. M. and reported by Dr. M. B., clarifies the prerequisites for such compensation, particularly when pre-trial detention exceeds the imposed sentence. Let's delve into the principles established by this important ruling.

The Right to Compensation: Art. 314 c.p.p. and its Limits

Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs compensation for unjust pre-trial detention. This right, an expression of the protection of personal liberty, is not unconditional. Jurisprudence balances compensation for damages with the prevention of abuses, paying attention to the applicant's conduct. The judgment in question consolidates a crucial interpretative trend for legal certainty.

In the matter of compensation for unjust detention, the right to compensation exists if the duration of pre-trial detention exceeds the imposed sentence, provided that no seriously negligent conduct by the applicant, causally linked to the adoption or prolongation of the measure, can be identified.

This maxim of the Supreme Court clarifies that compensation is due if pre-trial detention exceeds the final sentence, but it is excluded if the applicant engaged in "seriously negligent" conduct that directly caused or prolonged the pre-trial detention. This does not refer to any procedural error, but to serious actions or omissions causally linked to the precautionary measure, which make the request for compensation unjustified. In the case of the defendant N. Z., the appeal was rejected, confirming the decision of the Court of Appeal of Catania, suggesting the existence of these preclusive conditions.

The Applicant's "Serious Negligence": Examples

Judgment 18446/2025, in line with consistent precedents, emphasizes the assessment of the applicant's "serious negligence." A simple error is not enough; the conduct must have been decisive in inducing or maintaining the precautionary measure. Among the conducts that can preclude the right to compensation are:

• False or reticent statements that misled the investigation.
• Self-incriminating behavior or acts of obstruction.
• Significant omissions that prevented the correct reconstruction of the facts.

A direct causal link between the seriously negligent conduct and the pre-trial detention is essential. The burden of proof for such serious negligence lies with the prosecution, ensuring that compensation is excluded only in exceptional and well-substantiated cases, to protect the citizen.

Conclusions: Balance between Rights and Responsibilities

Judgment no. 18446 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation consolidates a fundamental principle: compensation for unjust detention is an inalienable right for those who have suffered a deprivation of liberty not justified by the final sentence. However, this right cannot be invoked by those who, through seriously negligent conduct, have contributed to determining or prolonging their own pre-trial detention. It is a delicate balance between individual responsibility and that of the State, which our legal system constantly seeks to perfect to ensure fairer and more transparent justice. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for the full protection of one's rights.