Administrative detention of foreigners: Supreme Court ruling no. 15754/2025 on the judge's duty of "full review"

With the recent ruling no. 15754/2025, the Supreme Court returns to the delicate issue of administrative detention of foreigners in Centres for Repatriation (CPR). The decision – which confirms the rejection of the appeal against a ruling by the Court of Appeal of Palermo – offers important insights for legal practitioners: the judge responsible for validation is required to conduct a comprehensive, even ex officio, examination of the documents forming the basis of the expulsion order and the consequent deprivation of liberty.

The core of the ruling

Administrative detention of foreign nationals under Law no. 187 of 2024 - Judicial review during validation or extension of detention - Acquisition of documentary evidence affecting the lawfulness of the expulsion order and the detention order - Necessity. In matters of administrative detention of foreign nationals under the procedural regime following Legislative Decree of 11 October 2024, no. 145, converted, with amendments, by Law 9 December 2024, no. 187, during the validation or extension of detention, the judge's review, compatible with the reduced timeframes of the procedure, must be carried out in a complete and exhaustive manner, including through the ex officio acquisition of documentary evidence relating to prerequisite measures that, even indirectly, have affected the lawfulness of the expulsion order and, therefore, the detention order.

The maxim emphasizes a cardinal principle: the judge cannot limit themselves to verifying the mere formal regularity of the administrative measure, but must investigate – also by obtaining the necessary documentation ex officio – its actual substantive lawfulness. In essence, validation is not a "notarial" act, but a true review of legality as required by Article 13 of the Constitution and Article 5 of the ECHR.

Legislative framework and precedents

The decision is part of the context of Legislative Decree no. 145/2024, converted into Law no. 187/2024, which redesigned the repatriation procedure. The Supreme Court refers to its own Civil Section I (ruling 3843/2025), indicating a consolidated trend in unifying the criterion for the protection of personal liberty, regardless of the procedural capacity.

• Art. 13 of the Constitution – legislative reserve and judicial review for any restriction of liberty.
• Art. 5, para. 1, ECHR – prohibition of arbitrary detention.
• Art. 14, paras. 5 and 6, Legislative Decree 286/1998 – prerequisites and duration of detention.
• Art. 6, para. 5, Legislative Decree 142/2015 – guarantees in case of minors or vulnerable individuals.
• Legislative Decree 13/2017, Art. 5-bis – jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace regarding execution.

Also relevant is the reference to Art. 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which legitimizes the ex officio acquisition of documents when necessary for the decision: a bridge between criminal proceedings and the chamber procedure for immigration matters.

Practical implications for legal practice

For lawyers assisting detained individuals, the ruling opens up greater defensive possibilities. It is now strategic to:

• urge the judge to request police reports, Schengen notifications, fingerprint and photograph records, and previous protection refusals;
• raise the nullity of the validation if such documents are not acquired;
• invoke the incompatibility of detention with health conditions or vulnerabilities, producing medical certificates;
• refer to ECHR case law (e.g., Khlaifia v. Italy) as a parameter for conventionally oriented interpretation.

No less important is the coordination with any pending appeals before the TAR (Regional Administrative Court) against the expulsion order: according to the Supreme Court, if elements of illegality emerge, the validation judge must take them into account without waiting for the outcome of the administrative proceedings.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 15754/2025 strengthens the guarantees for foreign nationals deprived of their liberty, reiterating that judicial review cannot be a formal step but must translate into a true scrutiny of the merits. The defence is called upon to play a proactive role, providing or requesting the collection of all documents useful for demonstrating the potential illegality of the expulsion or detention measure. Pending constitutional judgments on various articles of the Consolidated Law on Immigration, the Supreme Court thus draws a clear line: the protection of personal liberty does not allow for procedural shortcuts.