The applicant entered Italy in 2016 and requested international protection. The Territorial Commission of Florence rejected his application in 2018. On 22 April 2022, the Prefect of Vercelli issued a removal order, and the applicant was detained at the Pre-Removal Centre (Centro di Permanenza per il Rimpatrio, CPR) of Turin the same day. The Justice of the Peace validated the detention on 23 April 2025. On 9 May 2025, he was transferred to the CPR in Gjader, Albania, where he submitted a subsequent asylum application on 14 May 2025. The detention order under Article 6 of Legislative Decree No. 142/2025 was validated on 16 May 2025 by the Court of Appeal of Rome solely under Article 6(3) due to the instrumentality of the asylum application. The Territorial Commission rejected the application as manifestly unfounded. On 26 May 2025, a detention review was requested from the Justice of the Peace of Rome, which denied it on 26 June 2025. The applicant filed an urgent application for interim relief under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the Tribunal of Rome.

The applicant claimed that since entering the CPR of Gjader, he had been subjected to pharmacological treatment with psychiatric drugs despite the absence of a formal psychiatric diagnosis, resulting in a sharp and continuous deterioration of his mental health. The clinical diary indicated he could sleep only one to two hours per night, experienced recurring nightmares, suffered from a depressed and anxious state, and often went several days without eating, severely impacting his physical health. He had been detained in Albania for over two months without access to adequate care for his worsening psychiatric condition. The applicant argued that this detention violated his fundamental right to health and called for urgent judicial intervention to either end the detention or reconsider the constitutionality of administrative detention laws.

The Tribunal of Rome noted that the medical file, particularly the clinical diary, fully corroborated the applicant’s account. The diary documented a worsening of the applicant’s mental health between June and July, including insomnia, anxiety, depressed mood, reduced appetite, and distress, showing a severe deterioration despite treatment with progressively higher doses of medication.

The tribunal noted that the applicant was administered Clonazepam (marketed as Rivotril) which is officially approved in Italy only as an anti-epileptic drug. It emphasized that under Italian law, prescribing drugs outside their approved indications (off-label use) is permitted only if the prescribing doctor, based on documented evidence and scientific literature, considers it necessary for the patient’s health, and after fully informing the patient and obtaining their informed consent. The tribunal underscored that informed consent is a fundamental right requiring clear, specific, and voluntary agreement. According to the clinical diary, the tribunal found that such informed consent and proper information were not provided in this case. Consequently, it concluded that the applicant did not receive treatment appropriate to his health condition, which continued to deteriorate, and that the therapy was administered outside the legal conditions and safeguards.

Moreover, the tribunal affirmed that the clinical diary did not clarify the affiliations of the treating doctors or whether they belong to the Italian National Health Service. The tribunal noted that there is no permanent Italian National Health Service presence in Albania, and that the applicant required care from an appropriate facility, such as a mental health centre under the Italian Local Health Authority (ASL). For these reasons, the tribunal held that the way in which the applicant was detained at the CPR of Gjader infringed his fundamental right to health.

Moreover, the tribunal cited the Constitutional Court judgment No 96 of 9 June 2025, which declared inadmissible the constitutional questions raised by the Justice of the Peace of Rome, but recognized the unconstitutionality of administrative detention rules due to a legislative gap. The tribunal specified that the Constitutional Court gave no guidance on the civil court’s jurisdiction over administrative authority acts, or on how the civil court’s protective measures relate to the review process governed by Article 15(3) of the Return Directive. The tribunal noted the possibility of referring the matter to the Court of Cassation for a preliminary ruling to clarify the jurisdiction and powers of the civil court.

The tribunal affirmed that, since the law does not grant such powers to ordinary courts, it cannot independently impose measures within the exclusive authority of the administrative body, such as applying alternative measures or transferring detainees to another CPR in Italy. Additionally, it held that transferring the applicant would not resolve the issue of adequate care, as CPRs lack direct healthcare provision by the National Health Service, unlike prisons. This is because the management of healthcare is entrusted to the centre’s private operator, which delivers services based on specific contractual requirements. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the only adequate measure to protect the applicant’s right to health was to end the detention and order the immediate release from the CPR.

Note: to access the original judgment users must create an account on Meltingpot.org.