Italy’s Court of Cassation has ended the criminal proceedings against Matteo Salvini in the Open Arms case, confirming that the former Interior Minister was cleared of charges linked to the 2019 dispute involving a humanitarian rescue vessel. The ruling was issued on 17 December 2025 and marks the final step in a legal process that represented a national debate on migration, maritime rescue obligations and the duties of the Italian government.

The case originated when the Spanish NGO ship Open Arms rescued migrants in the central Mediterranean and later sought permission to disembark them in the island of Lampedusa - Italy. Although the vessel had already entered Italian territorial waters, the Interior Ministry refused authorization for several days. Therefore, prosecutors argued that this amounted to illegal confinement, illegal arrest and abuse of power, given the humanitarian and legal obligations related to the SAR operations.

In 2024, the Palermo Tribunal cleared Mr. Salvini, concluding that the criminal charges could not be substantiated. The prosecution challenged such a decision directly before the Court of Cassation - therefore, bypassing the Court of Appeal - claiming that the lower court had misinterpreted the legal framework regulating disembarkation and the State’s duties once a rescue vessel reaches national waters.

The Supreme Court, however, was not asked to reassess the facts, but to determine whether the first‑instance ruling complied with procedural and legal standards. During the hearing, the Attorney General also recommended confirming Mr. Salvini clearance. Moreover, while acknowledging that the handling of the Open Arms case raised concerns regarding the right to asylum, he claimed that the evidence did not demonstrate the necessary elements for criminal liability, particularly the presence of intent to commit the alleged offences.

The Palermo judges had previously stressed that the mere presence of an NGO vessel carrying rescued individuals cannot be treated as inherently unlawful. They also rejected the idea that maritime rescue activities could be equated with facilitating irregular migration, noting that the Open Arms mission complied with international conventions governing search and rescue at sea.

With the ruling, the criminal case is now closed. But, broader issues remain unresolved: how does Italy interpret its obligations under international maritime law? How are humanitarian rescue operations treated within national policy? And, how is the right to asylum safeguarded in practice?