Jurisdiction of the Supervisory Magistrate for Substitute House Arrest: Analysis of Judgment no. 18940/2025

The Italian legal landscape is constantly evolving, and recent reforms, such as the one introduced by Legislative Decree no. 150 of October 10, 2022 (the Cartabia Reform), have often raised interpretative questions. One of the most debated aspects concerns jurisdiction over matters related to the execution of substitute penalties, particularly house arrest. On this crucial point, the Court of Cassation, with its Judgment no. 18940 filed on May 21, 2025, has provided a fundamental clarification, reaffirming a cornerstone principle of our criminal enforcement system.

The Cartabia Reform and Doubts on Jurisdiction

Legislative Decree no. 150/2022 introduced significant changes to the criminal system, aiming to streamline proceedings and promote the use of substitute penalties for short detentions. House arrest plays a central role. The new provisions have generated uncertainties regarding the competent judicial body to manage the execution phases of these penalties, particularly if they had altered the traditional attribution to the Supervisory Magistrate.

The Principle Affirmed by the Court of Cassation: Judgment 18940/2025

The issue was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, which, with the judgment in question, resolved all interpretative doubts. The case involved the Public Prosecutor versus Mr. G. C., with the Court annulling without referral a decision by the Supervisory Judge of Campobasso. The ruling, presided over by Dr. G. R. and drafted by Dr. A. C., strongly reiterated a principle of continuity.

The functional jurisdiction to decide on matters relating to the execution of the substitute penalty of house arrest belongs, even after the amendments introduced by Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, no. 150, to the supervisory magistrate.

This maxim is of paramount importance. It means that, despite the legislative innovations of the Cartabia Reform, the role of the Supervisory Magistrate remains unchanged for managing the execution of substitute house arrest. The Court confirmed that the architecture of the surveillance system has not been undermined in this area, ensuring legal certainty and uniformity of application. The Supervisory Magistrate is the most suitable body to assess the rehabilitative path and monitor compliance with the prescribed conditions.

Legislative References and System Coherence

The decision of the Court of Cassation is based on a systematic reading of the current regulations. Key legislative references include:

• Articles 660 and 661 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Articles 62 and 66 of Law no. 689 of November 24, 1981 (regulation of substitute penalties).
• Article 20-bis of the Criminal Code (definition of short substitute detention penalties).

Maintaining jurisdiction with the Supervisory Magistrate is consistent with its institutional function. The Supreme Court, with this ruling, aligns with consistent precedents, strengthening a solid and consolidated jurisprudential trend, essential for the stability of the criminal system and for a personalized execution of penalties aimed at social reintegration.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty for Criminal Enforcement

Judgment no. 18940/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a significant practical and legal landmark. It unequivocally clarifies that, despite the profound innovations of the Cartabia Reform, the functional jurisdiction over the execution of substitute house arrest remains firmly with the Supervisory Magistrate. This decision ensures the continuity of a well-tested system and offers legal certainty to all legal operators and citizens involved in criminal enforcement paths. A fundamental piece for an effective, just, and socially oriented application of criminal law.