The Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (ASGI) and Cittadinanzattiva APS challenged before the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Lazio the Decree of the Minister of the Interior of 4 March 2024, approving the standard tender specifications for the management and operation of Repatriation Detention Centres (CPRs). The Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Lazio dismissed the application, and the associations subsequently appealed that judgment before the Council of State. By judgment No 7839/2025, the Council of State partially upheld the appeal. In reaching its decision, it referred to Constitutional Court judgment No 96/2025, which found that the legal framework governing restrictions on personal liberty in CPRs breached the absolute reservation of law under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. Following that judgment, the two associations initiated enforcement proceedings, by an application lodged on 11 February 2026, seeking compliance with Judgment No 7839/2025. They argued that the Ministry of the Interior had failed to carry out the thorough factual assessment required by the Council of State and to ensure the meaningful involvement of the Ministry of Health and the National Guarantor for the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty. They submitted that the revised tender specifications continued to lack specific staff training requirements, mandatory suicide prevention protocols and continuous 24-hour medical coverage.

The Council of State observed that in Judgment No 7839/2025 it had held that, pending the legislative intervention called for by Constitutional Court Judgment No 96/2025, the competent authorities were required to carry out a careful assessment of the factual situation in CPRs in order to determine whether the healthcare and social care standards provided were consistent with constitutional and supranational standards for the protection of individuals. The judgment further emphasised that the involvement of the Ministry of Health and the National Guarantor for the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty should not be merely formal but should form part of a substantive reassessment of the organisational and healthcare measures considered necessary by the council.

The council clarified that the binding effect of its previous judgment comprised two distinct obligations. First, the administration was required to eliminate the inconsistencies identified between the tender specifications and the Ministerial Directive of 19 May 2022. Second, it was required to carry out a renewed and thorough factual assessment, based on the actual conditions in the CPRs, to determine whether the measures adopted were sufficient to protect the physical and mental health of persons held there. The council held that the first obligation had been fully complied with, whereas the second had not. It found no indication that the administration had carried out the substantive reassessment of the tender specifications that constituted the core of the procedural deficiency identified in Judgment No 7839/2025. In particular, the exchanges with the Ministry of Health and the National Guarantor for the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty appeared to have focused almost exclusively on ensuring that the revised text complied with the Ministerial Directive of 2022. By contrast, there was no evidence that the administration had gathered information on the actual conditions within the CPRs or carried out any assessment of the adequacy of healthcare provision, the organisation of psychological assistance, the specialised training of staff, the incidence of self-harm or suicide attempts, or any other issues relevant to safeguarding the health of persons held there. The council held that the mere formal involvement of the Ministry of Health and the National Guarantor for the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty was insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the binding effect of the judgment. It observed that the judgment did not merely require the administration to seek opinions or observations but rather, it required the involvement of those institutional bodies to form part of a process of genuine reassessment of the conditions in the CPRs.

The council therefore concluded that the previous judgment had not been fully implemented. However, it found no basis for characterising the administration's conduct as an evasion of the judgment or for declaring the subsequent measures null and void under Article 114(4)(b) of the Code of Administrative Procedure. Instead, it held that the case concerned only partial and incomplete implementation and accordingly ordered the administration to complete the factual assessment and evaluation required by the previous judgment. The council ordered the Ministry of the Interior, within six months of the publication of the present judgment, while the current tender specifications remained provisionally in force, to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the situation in the CPRs, focusing in particular on healthcare and psychological assistance, staff training, and the analysis of the most frequent critical incidents recorded during the previous five years. The assessment must be carried out in cooperation with the Ministry of Health and the National Guarantor for the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty, including for the purpose of obtaining their views on whether further amendments to the tender specifications are necessary. Upon completion of the assessment, the administration must adopt a reasoned final decision explaining the grounds for its conclusions and, in particular, the reasons for any decision not to follow, in whole or in part, the recommendations made by the other authorities involved.

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