Compensation for Inhumane Detention: The Civil Court's Jurisdiction in Cassation Order No. 9218 of 2025
The protection of human rights, particularly for those deprived of liberty, is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Italy, a signatory to the ECHR, is committed to preventing inhuman or degrading treatment. Cassation Court Order No. 9218 of April 8, 2025, falls within this context, clarifying crucial aspects regarding claims for damages from inhumane detention and jurisdictional competence.
Article 3 ECHR and the Claim under Art. 35-ter O.P.
Article 3 of the ECHR is unequivocal: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This provision mandates that States ensure prison conditions respect human dignity. Condemnations by the ECtHR prompted the introduction of Article 35-ter of the Penitentiary Law (Law No. 354/1975), which allows current and former detainees to seek compensation for harm suffered due to non-compliant conditions.
Order 9218/2025: Jurisdiction Clarified
The Cassation Court, with Order No. 9218 of 2025 (rapporteur E. Campese), resolves the issue of jurisdiction for claims under Art. 35-ter O.P., providing an authoritative interpretation.
In matters of detention under conditions not compliant with Art. 3 ECHR, the claim under Art. 35-ter, paragraph 3, O.P. falls under the jurisdiction not of the supervisory judge, but of the civil court of the district capital where the former detainee resides, which decides in a single-judge composition according to the procedures set forth in Art. 737 of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.). This is in consideration of the need to ensure an agile and effective procedural instrument. The standing to bring such a claim belongs to those who have suffered inhumane detention, whether definitively or non-definitively, provided that, in the former case, the sentence has been served, and in the latter, pre-trial detention is not convertible into an served sentence. (Principle applied in a case where the person who suffered inhumane pre-trial detention was not subsequently convicted).
The ruling establishes that jurisdiction for such claims lies with the civil court of the district capital of the former detainee's residence, not the supervisory judge. This choice, which involves a single-judge decision and the application of the streamlined procedures of Article 737 c.p.c., aims to ensure a swift and effective process.
Regarding standing to sue, the ruling specifies that the following may file a claim:
- Those who have suffered inhumane detention definitively, if the sentence has been served.
- Those who have suffered inhumane detention non-definitively (e.g., pre-trial detention), provided it has not been converted into a served sentence.
Conclusions: Greater Certainty and Protection
Order No. 9218 of 2025 is a crucial pronouncement that strengthens protection against inhuman and degrading treatment. It offers legal certainty regarding procedure and jurisdiction, guaranteeing citizens a clear path and an effective remedy in line with ECHR standards. This orientation reaffirms the Italian State's commitment to upholding fundamental rights, marking a step forward towards a more dignity-conscious penitentiary justice system.
