In June and July, three key rulings have been issued by national and international courts concerning migration management and border control in Italy.
European Court of Human Rights – S.S. and Others v. Italy
In a decision issued on the 12 of June, in the case S.S. and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declared the application inadmissible. The case involved migrants who argued that Italy bore responsibility for operations carried out by the Libyan Coast Guard. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish that Italy exercised effective control over the operations at sea, thus ruling out the existence of Italian jurisdiction in this context. It rejected the argument that Italy’s technical and financial support to Libya amounted to direct control, distancing itself from broader interpretations of Italian responsibility advanced by some domestic courts.
Detention in CPRs – Constitutional Court Ruling No. 96/2025
On July 3, the Constitutional Court ruled on the constitutionality of Article 14, paragraph 2, of the Consolidated Immigration Act, which governs the detention of foreigners in Centri di permanenza per i rimpatri (Repatriation Detention Centres). The Court declared the questions raised by the Justice of the Peace in Rome inadmissible. While acknowledging that detention affects personal liberty and that the current legal framework is lacking—relying heavily on secondary legislation and discretionary measures—the Court held that it is up to the legislator to address these deficiencies by establishing clear rules that respect fundamental rights.
Sea Rescue and Administrative Detention of Ships – Constitutional Court Ruling No. 101/2025
On July 8, the Constitutional Court rejected the legitimacy challenges brought by the Brindisi Court regarding Article 1, paragraph 2-sexies, of Decree Law No. 130/2020, which concerns the administrative detention of ships involved in rescue operations. The Court recognised the punitive nature of the measure but found that the law clearly defines punishable conduct, thereby upholding the principles of legality and foreseeability. Crucially, the Court stressed the priority of identifying a “safe port,” which must protect life, essential needs, freedom, and absolute rights, including the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Consequently, non-compliance with orders that would endanger life or violate the duty to rescue cannot be sanctioned.
These three rulings reflect some of the challenges courts face in addressing the protection of migrants’ fundamental rights. They show the difficulties in finding a balance between state sovereignty, existing legislative frameworks, and international responsibilities, with some important issues remaining dependent on legislative action or limited by legal and jurisdictional factors.