Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to liberty and security, ensuring that any deprivation of liberty must follow a lawful process and be justified. In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) reviewed several cases against Italy involving alleged violations of this right.

Cramesteter v. Italy
In Cramesteter v. Italy (no. 19358/17, judgment of 6 June 2024), the applicant, Fabio Cramesteter was convicted in 2003 for weapons possession and theft. In 2004, he was acquitted on appeal by reason of insanity and subsequently transferred to a forensic psychiatric hospital (Ospedali Psichiatrici Giudiziari, or OPG).

In 2014, Italy enacted reforms (Law no. 81/2014) mandating the closure of all OPGs by March 2015 and stipulated that individuals acquitted by reason of insanity could not be detained longer than their potential prison sentence. Under these reforms, Cramesteter should have been eligible for release by early 2015. However, he remained in psychiatric detention until May 2016. His subsequent claim for wrongful detention was rejected by Italian courts, which held that the new sentencing limitations lacked retroactive applicability.

The ECHR determined that Italy had unlawfully deprived Cramesteter of his liberty by continuing his confinement past this deadline without clear legal justification, violating Article 5.1. Furthermore, Italy’s refusal to compensate Cramesteter for this wrongful detention, citing the non-retroactivity of the 2014 reforms, breached his rights under Article 5.5. In recognition of these violations, the Court awarded Cramesteter 8,000 Euros  for moral damage, within three months of the date on which the judgment became final. In case of failure to pay within the established deadline, the amount will be increased by interest equal to the rate of the European Central Bank, increased by three percentage points. 

As of now, there is no public record indicating that Italy has relied on the Cramesteter v. Italy case, however the case is significant in the jurisprudence of the ECHR, as it highlights the need for rigorous control over detention in psychiatric facilities and the importance of ensuring effective remedies for victims of unjust detention. Italy is now called upon to respect the principles enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and to improve its judicial system to protect the rights of prisoners.

E.G. c. Italy
In E.G. c. Italy (no. 56697/21, decision of 20 June 2024), the applicant, a minor with behavioural issues and a history of drug addiction, complained about his detention in a juvenile prison under Articles 3, 5, and 13 ECHR. 
The Court noted that he received consistent medical and psychological support and that no expert had deemed his detention inappropriate. The Article 3 complaint was ruled manifestly ill-founded, and the remaining claims were declared inadmissible.

C.V. v. Italy
In C.V. v. Italy (no. 6897/24, decision of 7 November 2024), the applicant, a woman with psychiatric conditions, claimed that her detention in unsuitable conditions, the non-enforcement of a court order for her transfer to a specialised facility (REMS), and delayed compliance with an interim ECtHR measure violated Articles 3, 5, 6, 13, and 34. Italy submitted a unilateral declaration acknowledging violations and offered 24,684 Euros in damages and 3,000 Euros for costs. 
Despite the applicant’s objection, the Court found the offer sufficient and struck out the case, ending the effect of the interim measure.

Landolina v. Italy
In Landolina v. Italy (no. 37057/23, decision of 5 December 2024), the applicant complained about prolonged house arrest and the absence of an enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 ECHR. The Italian Government acknowledged the violations in a unilateral declaration and offered 60,139 Euros in damages and 3,000 Euros for costs. 
Although the applicant objected, the Court considered the Government’s offer adequate according to its case-law and struck the application out under Article 37.1, lett.c ECHR.