Cassazione n. 16386/2025: what changes for the translation of documents in the detention of foreigners?

With judgment no. 16386 filed on April 30, 2025, the First Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation addresses a highly topical issue: the necessity (or not) of translating the order of validation or extension of detention provided for by decree-law 145/2024, converted into law 187/2024, into the foreigner's language. The case concerned S. P. M., a non-EU citizen, who complained of a violation of his right to defence due to the failure to translate the document. However, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, rejecting the appeal.

The regulatory framework and the question of legitimacy

Article 14, paragraph 6, of the Consolidated Law on Immigration (Legislative Decree 286/1998) governs detention in Centres for the Repatriation of Stay. The recent decree-law 145/2024 introduced a stricter procedural regime, but did not explicitly state the obligation to translate the validation or extension into the language known to the individual. The appellant, referring to the European arrest warrant (Law 69/2005), raised a doubt about constitutional legitimacy—due to the violation of Articles 13, 24, and 111 of the Constitution—as well as compatibility with Article 5 of the ECHR. The Court deemed the issue "irrelevant." Let's see why.

In the matter of administrative detention of foreign persons 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 omission of translation, into the language of the detained foreign national, of the order validating or extending the measure does not in itself constitute a cause for nullity, in the absence of specific elements indicating prejudice regarding the full exercise of the right to defence, as the party is not permitted in any case to file an appeal for cassation personally and is recognised, even without personal expenses where the conditions for legal aid at state expense are met, the right to use a trusted interpreter for the translation of the document, with a possible postponement of the relevant deadline for appeal.

The maxim, if read carefully, rests on two cornerstones: absence of concrete violation of the right to defence and availability of protective measures (lawyer/interpreter) already provided for by the legal system.

The Supreme Court's reasons

The Court of Cassation values Articles 143, 178, 606, and 613 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: nullity resulting from a lack of translation is "relative" and requires proof of prejudice. In administrative detention, appeals are exclusively made through a lawyer, so the foreigner can:

• request a trusted interpreter, also at the state's expense, if admitted to legal aid;
• obtain a postponement of the deadline for appeal to allow for translation;
• assert any concrete defects in Cassation pursuant to art. 606 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Given that the appeal cannot be filed personally, the Court excludes an automatic invalidating effect: it is up to the defence to demonstrate that the lack of translation prevented the articulation of specific grievances.

Practical implications for lawyers and administrations

The ruling offers useful guidance:

• Lawyers must meticulously document the link between the omitted translation and the restriction of the adversarial principle.
• Police headquarters and Justices of the Peace, although not obliged, would do well to provide standardised translations to prevent litigation.
• Detained foreigners must be informed—with the assistance of an interpreter—of the possibility of accessing legal aid at state expense.

This represents a balance between administrative efficiency and the protection of fundamental rights, in line with ECHR case law (cases Husayn v. Poland and Shamayev v. Georgia). The Court of Cassation refers to Article 117 of the Constitution, requiring an interpretation consistent with supranational principles nonetheless.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 16386/2025 does not deny the value of translating documents: it relativises their procedural impact, however, by making it conditional on "concrete prejudice." For professionals, this means strengthening defence activities from the validation stage onwards, while for the legislator, the challenge remains to reconcile public safety and individual guarantees, perhaps by explicitly incorporating the obligation to translate, as already occurs in matters of European arrest warrants. In the meantime, the main path remains the one indicated by the Court: ensuring an effective interpreter and lawyer, because the right to defence cannot know linguistic barriers.