Unjust detention and security measures: the Court of Cassation, judgment no. 13539/2024, recognises compensation

With ruling no. 13539 filed on April 8, 2025, the Fifth Section of the Court of Cassation addresses a topic of great practical interest: compensation for unjust detention in cases of undue application of the personal security measure of labour house. The verdict, which stems from a decision by the Court of Appeal of Rome of June 6, 2024, establishes that the restriction suffered must be compensated pursuant to art. 314 c.p.p., just like any other form of deprivation of liberty.

The procedural facts and the decision of the Court of Cassation

The defendant, S. S. (indicated as M. P.M. S. in the ruling), had been subjected to the security measure of labour house, which later proved to be without grounds. After its revocation, she requested compensation for the days of lost freedom. The Court of Appeal declared the claim inadmissible, holding that the security measure was not of a "detention" nature in the strict sense. The Court of Cassation overturns the decision: the labour house has a restrictive nature and, if applied illegitimately, generates the same existential and patrimonial damage that art. 314 c.p.p. aims to compensate.

The regulatory framework and jurisprudential precedents

The Supreme Court's reasoning is based on a twofold premise:

• Art. 215, para. 1, letter i) c.p.: qualifies the labour house as a detention security measure, with an inevitable compression of personal freedom.
• Art. 314 c.p.p.: provides for the right to compensation for those who have undergone precautionary or detention measures that subsequently proved to be unjust.

The judgment, in continuity, refers to decisions no. 5001/2009, 11086/2013, and 28369/2022, which had already recognised compensation for atypical coercive measures such as admission to REMS. Also relevant, from a supranational perspective, is art. 5 §5 ECHR, according to which any unlawful deprivation of liberty imposes an effective compensation on the State.

In terms of compensation for unjust detention, the deprivation of personal liberty unduly suffered as a result of the application of the personal security measure of labour house is compensable, pursuant to art. 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it has a restrictive nature.

The maxim, clear in its simplicity, expands the protection offered by art. 314 c.p.p. beyond classic precautionary measures (custody in prison, house arrest), including security measures which, although formally "rehabilitative", de facto affect the fundamental right to freedom. For the defence lawyer, this translates into the possibility of claiming compensation whenever the measure has been ordered or maintained in violation of legal requirements (social dangerousness, proportionality, reasoning).

Practical aspects: when compensation can be obtained

In light of the ruling, the conditions for the acceptance of the claim pursuant to art. 314 c.p.p. in the case of labour house can be summarised as follows:

• Original or subsequent illegitimacy of the measure (e.g., for subsequent acquittal or for proven lack of dangerousness).
• Actual deprivation of liberty suffered by the beneficiary, even if in a mitigated form compared to imprisonment.
• Absence of intent or gross negligence on the part of the interested party in causing the measure (art. 314, para. 2).

From a probative point of view, it will be strategic to document day by day the stay in the facility, the limitations suffered, any work and family prejudice, so as to adequately quantify the requested compensation.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 13539/2024 marks a further step towards the effectiveness of compensatory protection for those who have suffered an unjustified compression of personal freedom. By extending the scope of application of art. 314 c.p.p. to detention security measures, the Court reaffirms the centrality of the principle of proportionality and judicial control over restrictions of freedom. For defence lawyers: monitoring the legitimacy of security measures now becomes decisive not only in the execution phase, but also in order to guarantee, retrospectively, adequate economic remedies for clients.