A road or railway blockade during a protest march can have criminal consequences, but not every presence at a demonstration amounts to a crime. If you have received a report, a summons to appear, or a notice of investigation following a protest in Milan, it is natural to wonder what behavior is being attributed to you, whether the duration of the blockade matters, and whether liability can also extend to those who did not organize the initiative.
I help you distinguish a blockade carried out with one's own body from the use of objects or barriers, conscious participation from simple presence in the march, and the impediment of traffic from a slowdown. We will also examine why the date of the incident, the number of people involved, video footage, and the concrete effect on traffic or railway service can significantly alter the classification of the charge.
When the blockade with the body becomes a crime
Since April 12, 2025, obstruction carried out with one's own body is also criminally relevant when it prevents free movement on ordinary roads or railways. Article 1-bis of Legislative Decree No. 66 of January 22, 1948, now provides for this conduct imprisonment of up to one month or a fine of up to 300 euros. If the act is committed by multiple persons assembled together, the penalty increases to imprisonment from six months to two years. The text amended by Law No. 80 of 2025 can be consulted in the Official Gazette, Article 14 of Decree-Law No. 48 of 2025 converted into law.
The rule requires an impediment to circulation, not merely participation in a march. Therefore, it matters whether a person positions themselves in a way that concretely stops vehicles or trains, whether the obstacle can be passed without danger, and whether passage remains genuinely possible. A slowdown due to the natural presence of many people along a route does not automatically coincide with a blockade attributable to an individual participant.
The provision does not establish an express minimum duration. However, it would be incorrect to conclude that any stop lasting a few seconds inevitably constitutes the crime. The report by the Office of the Reference Library of the Court of Cassation highlights precisely the need to clarify, in early applications, the boundary between significant disruption and minor or easily circumvented inconvenience. This makes the placement of individuals, traffic flows, the possibility of safe detours, and the actual duration of the impediment decisive. The report of the Court of Cassation on the 2025 updates addresses these interpretative issues.
The difference between the body, objects, and barriers
Using one's body and using objects to obstruct the road do not entail the same charge. Article 1-bis specifically concerns those who impede circulation by obstructing the roadway or railway with their own body. Article 1 of the same legislative decree instead concerns the placement or abandonment of devices or objects and, more generally, the obstruction or encumbrance of the road outside the cases of Article 1-bis, with a penalty of one to six years of imprisonment.
The object must be connected to the purpose of impeding or hindering circulation. It is not enough that signs, banners, or materials are present during a demonstration: it must be understood whether they were placed in a way that created the obstacle and what function they played in the episode. The provision therefore distinguishes an object held by a demonstrator from a barrier left on the road surface or tracks to interrupt passage. The current text of Article 1 is available on Normattiva, Legislative Decree No. 66 of 1948.
In the offense concerning objects, the number of people and aggressive methods can also weigh heavily. Article 1 provides for the doubling of the penalty if the act is committed by multiple persons, even if not assembled together, or with violence or threats to persons or damage to property. This aggravating factor differs from that of Article 1-bis, which speaks of multiple persons assembled together. The precise reconstruction of individual conduct is therefore essential: it is not indifferent whether one participated in a march, formed a human barricade, or prepared or transported materials intended to block passage.
In the march, personal contribution counts, not the label of participant
Being present at a demonstration does not prove by itself that you impeded circulation. Criminal liability is personal and requires the prosecution to link concrete conduct to the blockade situation. Position on the road or railway area, movements captured by cameras, communications among participants, and instructions received on the spot may assume relevance, but must be read in their context.
Awareness of the blockade is a fact to be ascertained. Those marching in an authorized protest or one already in motion may not have chosen to stop circulation; the case is different for those who join an action organized to occupy a crossing point or remain in the barricade after understanding its purpose. The report of权的 Court of Cassation observes that the exclusive purpose of expressing one's thoughts, without clear awareness of a blockade arising as an effect of the demonstration, may raise an issue regarding the mental element of the offense.
Nor should the role of promoter be presumed. A message published before the event, the dissemination of an appointment, or presence near the group does not automatically demonstrate direction of the contested action. A distinction must be made between a general invitation to participate in a protest and the specific indication to block a road or railway line. This distinction can affect both the reconstruction of the facts and the possibility of attributing the contribution of other participants to a specific person.
Railway blockade, public service, and possible additional charges
The blockade of tracks or a railway location can produce consequences beyond mere traffic disruption. The provision of Article 1-bis expressly includes railways. If the action stops or alters the railway service, the prosecution may also evaluate the relationship with the crime of interruption of a public office or service provided for by Article 340 of the Criminal Code, in addition to verifying any further acts that occurred during the episode.
All possible qualifications are not automatically cumulative. The 2025 report of the Court of Cassation notes that when the same conduct is encompassed within the new special offense of blockade with the body and the interruption of public service, the subsidiary clause of Article 340 may point toward the application of the special rule. This is an interpretative criterion to be related to the facts actually charged, not a rule that excludes other charges a priori.
Violence, threats, property damage, or resistance change the perimeter of the proceedings. A passive blockade must not be confused with aggressive conduct directed against persons, vehicles, or operators. If pushing, intimidation, damage, or physical opposition to a public official is alleged, the defense must address each charge individually: the different legal qualification depends not on the slogan of the protest, but on gestures, words, and provable consequences.
The date of the event is a primary point not to be overlooked. The regulation that transformed the blockade with one's own body from an administrative offense to a crime entered into force on April 12, 2025. A prior incident cannot be examined as if the new incrimination were already operational. Even for subsequent events, the exact timing of the action and the rule cited in the charge sheet must be identified.
How to navigate after a report, notice, or summons
A document received does not equal a conviction. First, it is necessary to understand whether it is an identification report, a notice of investigation, an invitation for questioning, a request for dismissal, or a court summons. Each document indicates a different phase and may contain a description of the facts, the cited articles, and important information for exercising the right of defense.
Complete materials matter more than a single freeze-frame or a short excerpt. In these proceedings, complete video recordings, photographs with verifiable time and location, public records, march routes, and messages showing what initiative was concretely known to the investigated person can be useful. The existence of a passage gap, the potential passage of emergency vehicles, and the possibility of bypassing the barrier are also elements that affect the reconstruction of the impediment.
The defensive line does not always coincide with denying any presence. If the person was in the march, it may be necessary to clarify their real role, the position occupied, and their knowledge of the action. If instead the accusation concerns group conduct, it must be verified whether individual elements exist or only a generic attribution. It is not useful to rely on the idea that a peaceful protest excludes the crime by itself, nor to accept as inevitable liability constructed solely on proximity to the place of the blockade.
Particularly minor nature of the offence is a possibility provided by law, not an automatic outcome. Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code allows for the exclusion of punishability in cases provided by the rule when the offense is of a particularly minor nature and the behavior is not habitual, also evaluating the modalities of the conduct and the actual consequences. It is not enough to invoke the short duration of the episode: the judge considers the fact as a whole. The text of Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code on Normattiva clarifies the prerequisites and limits of this ground for non-punishability.
Frequently asked questions
Can I be accused just because I was present at the march?
No, mere presence does not prove the crime. The prosecution must link the person to conduct that contributed to the blockade and must also consider awareness of the action's purpose. Being near the location, walking in the march, or photographing the event does not in itself amount to impeding circulation.
Is a blockade of a few minutes always criminally relevant?
No, there is no set number of minutes that decides the case by itself. It matters whether circulation was actually impeded in a concrete and appreciable manner. A brief action can be relevant if it truly blocks passage; conversely, minimal or easily surmountable inconvenience must be distinguished from actual obstruction.
What changes if the blockade happens on the tracks?
The railway is expressly included in Article 1-bis. Access to the tracks can also have consequences on railway service and raise additional issues beyond mere traffic. The defense must clarify the exact location, the effect on train circulation, the person's role, and any other alleged facts.
Do I risk arrest in flagrante delicto for Article 1-bis alone?
For the sole offense of Article 1-bis, even if aggravated by the number of persons assembled, the report of the Court of Cassation notes that the penalty limits do not permit arrest in flagrante delicto or personal precautionary measures. However, the answer changes if different crimes with different prerequisites and penalties are also alleged.
Can I request the particularly minor nature of the offence?
It can be evaluated if all the requirements of Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code are met. The judge considers the modalities of the conduct, the insignificance of the damage or danger, subsequent behavior, and the absence of habituality. It is not an automatic consequence of peaceful protest, lack of prior convictions, or limited duration of the blockade.
When it is useful to address the accusation immediately
The primary requirement is not to lose the concrete meaning of the documents received. If the allegation concerns a road or railway blockade that occurred in Milan, you can contact me with the document received and the materials already available. We can set up the comparison starting from the conduct indicated in the charge, the date of the event, and the elements distinguishing presence in the march from a conscious contribution to the blockade.