Unjust detention and the right to compensation: Cassation n. 13543/2025 provides clarity

With ruling 13543/2025, filed on April 8, 2025, the Court of Cassation strengthens the protection of those who suffer unjust detention. The case originated from an error in calculating the deadlines for requesting an alternative measure after the revocation of the suspension of the imprisonment order; this resulted in a detention that the Supreme Court deemed undue, emphasizing the requirement of the absence of intent or gross negligence on the part of the convicted person.

The core of the decision

The right to compensation for unjust detention exists even if the restriction of liberty, related to events subsequent to the conviction concerning the methods of serving the sentence, arises from an error by the authority issuing the execution order, to which the interested party has not contributed through intent or gross negligence. (Case concerning a period of unjust detention suffered by a convicted person, due to the revocation of the suspension of the execution order, declared ineffective by the execution judge as it was notified, for the purpose of submitting the request for an alternative measure to detention, through erroneous recourse to the "procedure for the unfindable", with consequent expiry of the deadlines for submitting the request for an alternative measure).

The principle, supported by previous consistent rulings (Cass. 57203/2017, 9721/2022, 25092/2021), clarifies that the error of the executive authority cannot be borne by the defendant, if the latter has not contributed to the error itself through intent or gross negligence. The Court refers to articles 314 and 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, norms constitutionally oriented by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, which provide for compensation for unjust detention and establish the procedural prerequisites for obtaining it.

Prerequisites for compensation pursuant to articles 314-315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

To access compensation before the competent Court of Appeal, the applicant must demonstrate:

• having undergone pre-trial detention or detention in the absence of intent or gross negligence;
• the existence of a causal link between the authority's conduct and the restriction of liberty;
• definitive acquittal or, as in the ruling in question, the declaration of illegitimacy of the restriction resulting from a procedural error.

In this case, the restriction was due to an imprisonment order notified using the "procedure for the unfindable" despite the interested party being locatable: the error prevented S. L. from timely submitting a request for placement with social services pursuant to art. 656 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and led to his imprisonment for several months.

Practical aspects for operators

The decision requires Public Prosecutors' Offices and execution offices to pay greater attention to the management of executive acts:

• verification of the correct notification of the execution order;
• compliance with deadlines for proposing alternative measures;
• punctual annotation of suspensions and revocations.

On the defense side, the ruling suggests:

• monitoring the entire execution process to identify possible errors;
• irrefutably documenting the absence of gross negligence on the part of the client;
• promptly submitting the claim for compensation within 2 years from the final and binding nature of the favorable decision.

Conclusions

Cassation ruling 13543/2025 represents a further step towards an objective concept of compensation for unjust detention: any error attributable to the authority, if there is no intent or gross negligence on the part of the individual, must be compensated. This orientation strengthens citizens' trust in the legality of administrative action and in the respect of fundamental rights, in line with Article 5 of the ECHR, which protects personal liberty, and Article 24 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to defense.