Introduction

On 24 April 2026, the Chamber of Deputies gave final approval to Bill A.C. 2886, converting Decree-Law 23/2026, known as the ‘Security Decree’. The text represents one of the most far-reaching and debated pieces of legislation on public order in recent years and is geared towards the early application of criminal law and the imposition of harsher penalties for a series of specific offences deemed to be a cause of particular social alarm. The bill focuses on specific areas: the crackdown on certain forms of protest (such as roadblocks and passive resistance), enhanced protection for state personnel (in the security and defence sectors and beyond), youth delinquency, and the management of migration flows.

From the perspective of the legislative process, the bill has been the subject of heated debate in the Justice and Constitutional Affairs Committees, where the original framework was supplemented with amendments that broadened the scope of the law, confirming a trend towards using criminal law to address urban and social problems.

The final text comprises 4 Chapters, totalling 38 articles. Chapter I (urgent provisions on public security) runs from Article 1 to Article 11. Chapter II (urgent provisions on investigative activities by the judicial authorities where there are grounds for justification, and on the functioning of the police forces and the Ministry of the Interior) runs from Article 12 to Article 25. Chapter III (provisions concerning the functioning of the Ministry of the Interior, as well as measures in favour of victims of duty, terrorism and organised crime) runs from Article 26 to Article 27-bis. Chapter IV (urgent provisions on immigration and international protection) runs from Article 28 to Article 33.

Chapter I – Urgent provisions on public security

The first section of the decree sets out a strategy to tackle juvenile delinquency, taking a two-pronged approach: the tightening of penalties for offences posing a danger to public safety and the reformulation of administrative prevention measures.

With regard to weapons and instruments capable of causing harm, Article 1 tightens the penalties for carrying blades longer than 8 centimetres and for instruments fitted with a folding blade of 5 centimetres or more (if single-edged, with a sharp point and fitted with a locking mechanism or capable of being opened with one hand). The legislator has chosen to treat specific instruments, such as switchblades or ‘butterfly knives’, as unlicensed weapons, introducing additional penalties designed to discourage their possession. Closely linked to this is Article 2, which addresses the circulation of such instruments amongst minors: a ban is introduced on the sale or transfer to minors of instruments designed for stabbing or cutting, accompanied by a financial penalty imposed on those exercising parental responsibility in the event of offences relating to the unlawful carrying of such items by the minor, thereby introducing a form of presumed negligence in supervision.

With regard to property offences, Article 3 represents a partial ‘step backwards’ compared to the Cartabia reform, reinstating ex officio prosecution for pickpocketing (Article 625(1)(4) of the Criminal Code) where the offence involves means of payment, documents, computer devices or causes significant financial damage. The same provision also introduces a new, extremely severe category of robbery committed by organised armed groups against credit institutions, armoured vehicles or post offices, punishable by imprisonment for between 10 and 25 years and fines of up to 9,000 euros, particularly if carried out using explosives, weapons or sabotage techniques. In the context of drug-related offences (Presidential Decree 309/1990, Article 73), Article 5 makes the confiscation of vehicles and movable property used to facilitate drug trafficking or production mandatory, rather than optional.

The legislator also introduces measures to strengthen territorial control. Article 4 strengthens the so-called ‘urban Daspo’ (a ban on entering a specific place for reasons of public order), allowing the Prefect to establish so-called ‘red zones’ (for 6 months, renewable up to 18) in areas characterised by serious criminal activity. Within these zones, individuals who have been charged in the last five years with offences against the person, property, weapons or drugs may be ordered to leave. Article 6 strengthens both technological and human surveillance by providing €19 million in additional funding for municipal CCTV, bolstering the Urban Security Fund and introducing incentives for the recruitment and overtime of local police officers. The legislation also increases the penalties for unauthorised parking attendants. To safeguard logistics and cash-in-transit operations, Article 8-bis reserves exclusive parking spaces for cash-in-transit vehicles and imposes penalties for the unauthorised occupation of such spaces.

A significant portion of Chapter I (Articles 7–10) overhauls the management of public order during demonstrations and the associated police controls. Article 7 extends the powers of preventive search and introduces preventive detention with compulsory escort to police stations for up to 12 hours for individuals deemed dangerous in public gatherings, with specific safeguards for minors. Article 8 makes it a criminal offence to flee road checkpoints in a manner that endangers public safety, extending the provision for deferred arrest in flagrante delicto to such cases. Article 9 has a significant systemic impact, as it decriminalises the failure to give prior notice to the Chief of Police regarding public gatherings, reclassifying it as an administrative offence (penalties ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 euros), whilst also extending liability to organisers operating on digital platforms. Article 10 introduces a new additional penalty for convictions relating to specific offences, including violence or resisting a public official. This penalty consists of a disqualification order prohibiting participation in public gatherings, which may be accompanied by an obligation to sign in at the events. Finally, Article 11 protects specific categories of vulnerable workers by extending the scope of ex officio prosecution and mandatory arrest in flagrante delicto for offences of bodily harm (Article 583-quater of the Criminal Code) committed against school staff and public transport workers.

Chapter II – Urgent provisions concerning investigative activities where grounds for justification exist and the functioning of the police force

The second chapter of Law 54/2026 addresses two broad areas: procedural safeguards for law enforcement agencies and the strengthening of staffing levels within the security sector.

The most hotly debated innovation lies in the institution of the ‘preliminary record’. Article 12 stipulates that, where an offence is committed (presumably by a police officer) in the presence of justifying grounds, the Public Prosecutor shall not immediately enter the suspect in the ordinary register of persons under investigation. Article 13 mandates the Ministry of Justice to establish a specific and separate ‘register for preliminary recording’ to manage these specific reports of offences, effectively delaying the formal designation of the individual as a suspect. To round off this system, Article 14 extends free legal protection and assistance to police and fire service personnel as early as this preliminary stage, whilst also waiving the traceability requirement for travel expense payments and extending special mobility arrangements for firefighters.

With regard to the enforcement of criminal sentences, Article 15 introduces the possibility for prison officers to carry out undercover operations within prisons to investigate specific offences. Article 16, on the other hand, tightens the criteria for granting permits of necessity to prisoners subject to the 41-bis regime and to state witnesses, by extending the procedural time limits for challenging such grants (48 hours for the Public Prosecutor, 15 days for the prisoner).

Articles 17 to 25 set out a comprehensive plan for the reorganisation, recruitment and streamlining of competitive examinations for all law enforcement agencies. For the State Police, Article 17 simplifies the physical fitness tests for internal promotions and opens up access to candidates with specialist qualifications. Articles 18 and 19 establish special and transitional competitive examinations for inspectors and technical inspectors (requiring a degree), whilst Article 19-bis revises the regulations governing senior officers on standby. Article 20 authorises special recruitment competitions for marshals with university degrees in the Carabinieri, amending the recruitment requirements and extending the term of office of the Deputy Commander-General to two years. Meanwhile, for the Guardia di Finanza, Article 21 reopens recruitment competitions for marshals in technical sectors (IT, healthcare, naval), extends the term of office of the Commander-General and removes drink-driving as a ground for automatic exclusion from entry. Article 21-bis, on the other hand, suspends promotions in cases where a person has been convicted of a non-negligent offence at first instance. Finally, with regard to the Prison Service, Article 22 extends the simplified procedures for promotion to senior ranks, Article 23 streamlines the initial training of deputy commissioners, Article 24 provides funding for professional retraining, and Article 25 clarifies that attendance allowances already paid are not payable again.

Chapter III – Provisions for the functioning of the Ministry of the Interior and measures for victims

This Chapter focuses on administrative efficiency and social recognition. Article 26 acts on two fronts: it unblocks the progression of the Ministry of the Interior’s competitive selection rankings (whilst freezing the mobility of new recruits until 2027 to ensure stability) and strengthens the Agency for Assets Confiscated from the Mafia, increasing its fund by €2 million.

Article 27 has a significant impact in terms of values, as it obliges public administrations to set up targeted recruitment programmes for victims of duty, terrorism, the Mafia and Covid-19 (in the healthcare sector), whilst also guaranteeing family members paid leave to take part in initiatives promoting a culture of legality. To protect those who fight crime, Article 27-bis guarantees state staff engaged in anti-Mafia work the right of pre-emption and redemption on accommodation allocated to them under the 1991 programmes.

Chapter IV – Urgent Provisions on Immigration and International Protection

The final section of the text has a profound impact on the administrative management of undocumented migrants. Article 28 addresses the prison system, introducing an obligation for foreign detainees to cooperate in their identification; refusal to provide personal details will be taken into account negatively when considering early release and assessing the risk they pose to society.

Article 29 reforms the deportation system: procedures are centralised at border police offices, and a second breach of a deportation order results in immediate detention in Repatriation Centres (CPRs). The most controversial provision of this Article removes access to legal aid for appeals against expulsion for non-EU citizens, regardless of their income. To streamline proceedings, Article 30-ter requires the supervisory judge to rule on the expulsion of foreign prisoners within a mandatory time limit of 15 days.

With regard to infrastructure, Article 30 introduces extensive exemptions from the ordinary law on public procurement until 2028 to speed up the construction and refurbishment of CPRs and reception centres, whilst also allowing documents to be served on asylum seekers via certified email (PEC). In this regard, Article 31 allocates the 20 million francs received under the Italy-Switzerland Migration Agreement to fund these facilities.

In terms of humanitarian management, Article 32 allows the Ministry of the Interior to directly award, by way of derogation, the provision of social and healthcare services in CPRs to the Italian Red Cross until the end of 2028. Finally, Article 30-bis provides incentives for assisted voluntary repatriation, involving the National Bar Council and establishing a standardised fee for lawyers assisting foreign nationals in joining the programme. However, this provision was simultaneously amended by another decree-law, which extended eligibility for this incentive to professionals other than lawyers. For further information on this specific provision, see the articles available here, here and here in the 2026 Yearbook.

Critical reactions

As expected, Law No. 54 of 2026 has provoked strong and alarmed reactions from the highest judicial bodies. In a resolution dated 15 April 2026, the Superior Council of the Judiciary (CSM) had issued a negative opinion (non-binding) on the conversion of the decree, highlighting constitutional concerns and worries regarding its impact on fundamental freedoms. The key points of criticism most frequently highlighted concern the excessively broad discretionary powers granted to the police and the overall compatibility of the security decree with Article 5 of the ECHR, which enshrines the right to liberty and security and prohibits arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

The reaction from the legal profession, and in particular from the Criminal Bar Associations, was no less severe. Lawyers have raised objections regarding the potential unconstitutionality of the abolition of legal aid for foreign nationals subject to expulsion proceedings (Article 29), identifying a clear breach of Article 24 of the Constitution, which guarantees the inviolability of the right to a defence even for those with less means. Strong criticism has also been levelled at the repressive framework of Chapter I: the reclassification of failure to give prior notice as an administrative offence, combined with the new disqualification measures (Articles 9 and 10) and preventive detention (Article 7), is viewed by the Legal Service as a ploy to circumvent ordinary criminal safeguards, resulting in a chilling effect on the exercise of the fundamental rights of assembly and freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution.

Conclusions

Law No. 54 of 24 April 2026, marks an unequivocal paradigm shift in the conception of public security; it favours a preventive security model based on abstract assessments of risk in relation to public gatherings; it strengthens the powers of public security authorities to manage public order preventively; and it affords them broad operational safeguards, to the detriment of the protection of certain fundamental rights, such as freedom of assembly and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

The long-term effectiveness of this repressive crackdown remains to be assessed in practice, particularly with regard to complex phenomena such as juvenile delinquency and the management of migration flows.

However, the constitutional compliance of many of the provisions introduced will remain at the centre of judicial scrutiny in the coming years. It will fall to the trial courts and the Constitutional Court, as well as, where appropriate, the European Court of Human Rights, to undertake the delicate task of determining whether the need to ensure public order can restrict fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and by international conventions to such an extent.