Italy’s prison ruling: the Constitutional Court puts pressure on Parliament over overcrowding
Italy’s Constitutional Court is calling for urgent legislative action on prison overcrowding while clarifying the tools supervisory judges must use to stop inhuman detention: its reference is judgment 204, filed on 13 November 2026.[1]
The ruling declares the questions raised by Florence’s supervisory tribunal inadmissible; it does not create an automatic entitlement to home detention for people held in overcrowded prisons.[1]
## The Sollicciano case and existing remedies
The proceedings arose from a complaint by a prisoner at Sollicciano who described a nine-square-metre cell shared with two other people, water infiltration, no hot running water and beds infested with bedbugs.[1]
The Court’s statement recalls that the tribunal ordered remedial work in May 2025 and that the prison administration largely failed to comply.[1]
The Court says the tribunal first needed to demonstrate that it had used the full range of remedies under Article 35-bis of the prison legislation.[1]
These include appointing a commissioner empowered to act in place of the administration, including transferring the prisoner to another institution; the destination must allow family, personal and social ties to be maintained.[1]
Inadmissibility therefore concerns the procedural route followed in this case, not a finding that the reported conditions are acceptable.[1]
## The political warning is separate from the procedural outcome
The Court recognises that severe overcrowding risks making it increasingly difficult to find an institution offering decent conditions.[1]
It consequently calls for urgent measures that reduce overcrowding while protecting the public against any remaining danger posed by individual prisoners, citing changes to or broader access to alternatives to imprisonment as examples.[1]
Conchita Sannino’s Repubblica report, published at 15:43 on 13 November, likewise highlights the appeal to Parliament and confirms the inadmissibility of the Florence question.[2]
Only a short portion of that article was accessible: this account relies on the official statement for legal detail, rather than claiming to have read unavailable reporting.
## What still needs to happen
An appeal to lawmakers is not an enacted reform, and the power to order a transfer does not establish that a transfer has taken place in the individual case.[1]
The institutional issue is the gap between an individual remedy and a general response: moving one person may protect that person, while a structural reduction in overcrowding requires further public choices.
That is the editorial interpretation here; this draft announces no releases, amnesty or undocumented parliamentary timetable.
## Sources
[1] https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/uploads/release/6af705c77459b.pdf — consulta
[2] https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2026/11/13/news/carceri_sovraffollamento_corte_costituzionale_urgento_parlamento-425721228 — repubblica