Quarantine and Immediate Return Obligation: Cassation Criminal Court Ruling 31668 of 2025

The health emergency linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus compelled the Italian legislator to adopt extraordinary measures, often restrictive of personal freedoms, in order to protect public health. Among these, the quarantine obligation for individuals testing positive for the virus represented one of the pillars of the containment strategy. After some time, jurisprudence continues to clarify the scope and consequences of such provisions. In this context, Ruling No. 31668 of 2025 by the Criminal Court of Cassation offers a crucial interpretation regarding the conduct of those who, discharged from the hospital due to COVID-19 positivity, do not comply with the obligation of immediate return to their homes.

Regulatory Context and the Specific Case

During the most critical periods of the pandemic, Decree-Law of March 25, 2020, No. 19, converted with amendments by Law of May 22, 2020, No. 35, served as the primary legislative instrument for managing the emergency. In particular, Article 4, paragraph 6, provided for sanctions for violations of containment measures. The applicable sanction, as specified by the ruling itself, was that referred to in Article 260 of Royal Decree of July 27, 1934, No. 1265 (Consolidated Text of Health Laws), which governs contraventions of health ordinances. The case examined by the Cassation Court concerned the defendant M. P.M. P. E., who, after being discharged from the hospital following a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positivity and subjected to the quarantine measure ordered by the local health authority (the Mayor), did not immediately reach his home.

The Cassation Ruling: An Absolute Mobility Ban

The Court of Cassation, ruling on the appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Caltanissetta, rejected the appeal, confirming the commission of the offense. The ruling's headnote is clear and unequivocal:

The conduct of anyone subjected to the quarantine measure, applied by the mayor, as the local health authority, due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 virus positivity, who does not immediately reach their home after hospital discharge, constitutes the contravention referred to in Article 4, paragraph 6, of Decree-Law of March 25, 2020, No. 192, converted, with amendments, by Law of May 22, 2020, No. 35, sanctioned under Article 260 of Royal Decree of July 27, 1934, No. 1265, given the absolute nature of the mobility ban, which tolerates no delays and renders any protective measures worn irrelevant.

This statement underscores the extreme rigidity of the quarantine obligation. It is not a mere recommendation, but a prohibition on mobility