Analysis of Judgment No. 32394 of 2024: Subjective Right and Conformative Powers in the Penitentiary System

Judgment No. 32394 of April 11, 2024, filed on August 9 of the same year, represents an important ruling by the Court of Cassation in the penitentiary field. It focuses on the issue of inmates' subjective rights and the role of the penitentiary administration in exercising these rights. Specifically, the case concerns a complaint filed by an inmate pursuant to Article 35-bis of Law No. 354 of July 26, 1975, which raised questions about the legitimacy of limitations imposed by the administration.

The Regulatory and Legal Framework

The complaint pursuant to Article 35-bis of Law No. 354 of July 26, 1975, is a legal instrument through which inmates can challenge decisions affecting their rights. The judgment clarifies that the existence of a subjective right does not cease even when the penitentiary administration possesses conformative powers. In other words, the fact that the administration can establish how a right is exercised does not mean that the right itself can be called into question.

Complaint pursuant to Article 35-bis, Law of July 26, 1975, No. 354 - Existence of a subjective right - Conformative powers recognized to the penitentiary administration - Relevance - Exclusion - Assessment by the supervisory judge - Subject matter. Regarding the penitentiary system, the existence of a subjective right in the situation subject to the complaint filed by the inmate pursuant to Article 35-bis of Law of July 26, 1975, No. 354, does not cease if the penitentiary administration is recognized with powers to conform the modalities of exercising that right. Therefore, in such cases, the judicial assessment must address the reasonableness of the limits to the enjoyment of the right imposed by the administrative regulatory acts, and their suitability to affect the essential aspects of the right, thereby emptying its fundamental content.

Judicial Assessment and Rationality of Limits

A crucial aspect of the judgment is the emphasis on the necessity for judicial assessment to concern the reasonableness of the limits imposed by the penitentiary administration. It is not enough for such limits to exist; it is essential that they are justified and do not compromise the essential content of the right in question. This principle aligns with European regulations on human rights and the principles of dignity and respect for persons deprived of their liberty.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 32394 of 2024 offers significant insights for reflection on the protection of inmates' rights and the balance between these rights and the administration's powers. It highlights the importance of careful and rational assessment by the supervisory judge, who must ensure that limitations on rights do not become excessive or unjustified. In an ever-evolving legal context, it is crucial to maintain a focus on human dignity and fundamental rights, even within prison walls.