Administrative Detention of Foreign Nationals: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Continuity of the Measure Despite the Appeal – Order No. 9556 of 2025

The administrative detention of foreign nationals is a complex legal issue, balancing state sovereignty and fundamental rights. Order No. 9556 of the Court of Cassation of March 7, 2025, offers a crucial clarification on the effects of an appeal to the Court of Cassation against the validation or extension of such a measure, outlining the continuity of the detention's execution in light of recent regulations.

Regulatory Context and the Issue

The matter was recently amended by Decree-Law of October 11, 2024, No. 145, converted, with modifications, by Law of December 9, 2024, No. 187. These new provisions redefined the procedural regime for administrative detention, particularly for validation and extension procedures. In this framework, the Court of Cassation intervened to establish whether filing an appeal suspends the effectiveness of the measure restricting personal liberty.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: No Automatic Suspension

The core of Order No. 9556/2025 is the clear statement regarding the effectiveness of administrative detention even while an appeal to the Court of Cassation is pending. The Court established a fundamental principle:

In the matter of administrative detention of foreign nationals under the procedural regime following Decree-Law of October 11, 2024, No. 145, converted, with modifications, by Law of December 9, 2024, No. 187, while an appeal to the Court of Cassation against the validation or extension by the Court of Appeal sitting as a single judge or by the Justice of the Peace is pending, the filing of which does not suspend the execution of the measure pursuant to Article 14, paragraph 6, second period, of Legislative Decree of July 25, 1998, No. 286, the effect limiting personal liberty of jurisdictional origin, except for the legislative term of effectiveness or extension of the detention, continues to derive from its timely issuance and until its eventual removal, by analogy with what is provided for by Article 588, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding measures concerning personal liberty, without any invalidating consequence being derived from the duration of the appeal proceedings, nor from its suspension ordered pursuant to Article 23 of Law of March 11, 1953, No. 87, nor even from any interlocutory outcome.

The Court of Cassation clarifies that the appeal does not automatically suspend the execution of the detention. The effect limiting personal liberty, once legitimately ordered, persists for the duration provided by law or by the extension order, until its eventual revocation. Neither the duration of the appeal proceedings, nor its suspension (e.g., for constitutional legitimacy issues), nor an interlocutory outcome, can automatically invalidate the measure. The analogy with Article 588, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked for systemic coherence.

Practical Implications

This ruling has significant implications. It confirms that the detention maintains its executive effectiveness even during the Cassation appeal phase, unless there is an explicit order for its removal. The stay in the repatriation center (CPR) is not interrupted by the mere appeal to the Court of Cassation. The Court reiterates the validity of the measure until the expiry of its term or its formal invalidation, in line with Article 14, paragraph 6, second period, of Legislative Decree No. 286 of 1998.

The key points are:

• The appeal to the Court of Cassation does not suspend the execution of administrative detention.
• The effect limiting personal liberty continues until the expiry of the term or its formal removal.
• The duration of the appeal proceedings or its suspension do not invalidate the measure.
• The analogy with Article 588, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked.

Conclusions

Order No. 9556 of 2025 brings clarity to immigration law. By confirming the continuity of administrative detention even while an appeal to the Court of Cassation is pending, the Supreme Court offers essential interpretative guidance. This ruling reinforces the principle that the measure, once legitimately ordered and validated, continues its execution, unless there are contrary judicial interventions. It is crucial for lawyers and individuals involved to be aware of this interpretation for the correct management of defense strategies.