Compensation for Unjust Detention in the Supreme Court: The Written Procedure according to Judgment 19501/2025

In the Italian legal landscape, the protection of fundamental rights holds a paramount role, and among these, the right to compensation for unjust detention stands out. This is a cornerstone principle of any democratic system, aimed at compensating those who have suffered a restriction of their personal liberty that subsequently proved to be legally unfounded. The correct application of the procedures governing this right is crucial to ensure justice and certainty. In this context, the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Judgment no. 19501 of 13/03/2025 (filed on 26/05/2025), holds significant importance, offering fundamental clarifications regarding the procedural rite applicable in the judgment of legitimacy, particularly after the introduction of the so-called Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree 10 October 2022, no. 150).

The Right to Compensation for Unjust Detention: A Pillar of Legal Civilization

The right to compensation for unjust detention, provided for by Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, represents a bulwark for the protection of personal liberty, enshrined in Article 13 of the Italian Constitution. It is not merely economic compensation but a moral and legal recognition for those who have unjustly suffered the deprivation of their liberty. It applies to those who have been acquitted or discharged with a full acquittal, or for whom the precautionary measure has been revoked, after having undergone a period of pre-trial detention or preventive detention. This right underscores our legal system's focus on the individual and the need to balance the power of the State with the safeguarding of individual liberties.

Judgment 19501/2025: Clarity on the Written Procedure in the Supreme Court

The central issue addressed by the Supreme Court in the judgment under review, which involved I. A. as the defendant and Dr. C. D. as the rapporteur, concerned the procedure to be followed in the judgment of legitimacy for claims of compensation for unjust detention. Specifically, the question arose whether the amendment introduced by Legislative Decree no. 150 of 2022 had modified the applicability of the written procedure, i.e., a procedure conducted in writing without the parties' presence at a public hearing. The Court of Appeal of Rome, with a decision of 12/11/2024, had raised doubts, which were subsequently annulled with referral by the Supreme Court.

The headnote of the judgment, the core of the decision, states:

In matters of compensation for unjust detention, the written procedure with written adversarial proceedings provided for by art. 611, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies in the judgment of legitimacy, even following the amendment introduced by d.lgs. 10 October 2022, no. 150. (In its reasoning, the Court also affirmed that the reference made by art. 315, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the provisions for judicial error, referred to in arts. 643 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not relevant for this purpose).

This ruling is of paramount importance. The Supreme Court, presided over by Dr. D. S. E., has clarified that, despite the amendments made by the Cartabia Reform, the proceedings in the judgment of legitimacy for applications for compensation for unjust detention continue to be conducted under the written procedure with written adversarial proceedings, as provided for by Article 611, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This means that the parties do not need to appear physically in court but must file written briefs and conclusions. The Court also specified that the reference in Article 315, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the provisions for judicial error (Articles 643 and following of the Code of Criminal Procedure) does not entail the application of a different, presumably oral, procedure in the judgment of legitimacy for issues relating to unjust detention. This clarification is fundamental to avoid procedural uncertainties and ensure uniform application of the law.

Practical Implications and Legal Certainty

The implications of this judgment are manifold and of great relevance for legal practice and for citizens. The confirmation of the written procedure offers:

• Procedural Certainty: It eliminates any interpretative doubt regarding the procedure to be followed before the Supreme Court for these delicate matters, providing a firm point of reference for legal professionals.
• Efficiency: The written procedure can contribute to greater speed in the handling of appeals, avoiding the time and costs associated with organizing public hearings.
• System Coherence: It maintains coherence with the nature of the judgment of legitimacy, which is primarily a judgment on the law and not on the facts, based on the analysis of documents and written arguments.

The ruling of the Supreme Court reaffirms the principle that, even in the face of legislative reforms aimed at streamlining and digitizing criminal proceedings, the specificity of certain procedures, such as that for compensation for unjust detention, must be interpreted in light of their function and the needs of substantive and procedural justice.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 19501 of 2025 by the Supreme Court of Cassation represents an important piece in the mosaic of Italian criminal justice. By clarifying the applicability of the written procedure in the judgment of legitimacy for claims of compensation for unjust detention, the Supreme Court has provided an authoritative and necessary orientation. This decision not only guarantees greater legal certainty for citizens and lawyers who face such procedures but also strengthens the protection of one of the fundamental rights of the individual: that of being compensated for an unjust deprivation of liberty. A concrete example of how jurisprudence, through its rulings, contributes to defining and consolidating the principles on which our legal system is founded.