Background
Four Italian prisoners were serving life sentences for murders and other serious crimes associated with mafia activity. Their life sentences had originally been reducible, but the courts supervising their imprisonment later applied the “ergastolo ostativo” regime under section 4 bis of the Prison Administration Act. Under the 1992 version of that provision, prisoners convicted of specified mafia-related crimes who did not cooperate with the judicial authorities were generally barred from parole and other sentence adjustments.
For three applicants, the murders attracting life sentences predated the 1992 reform, and the statutory mafia-type aggravating circumstances had not been charged. For the fourth, those circumstances had been expressly ruled out in the judgment convicting him. Nevertheless, sentence-enforcement courts treated the murders as mafia-related based on the reasoning or context of the convictions. Italy amended section 4 bis in 2022 to permit non-cooperating prisoners to seek parole and other measures if they satisfy specified conditions demonstrating rehabilitation and the absence of continuing mafia ties.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously found violations of Article 3 for the periods during which the applicants were subject to the former ergastolo ostativo regime without a clear and realistic prospect of release. For one applicant, the violation ran from 2 May 2016 until 10 May 2022, when a domestic court treated his life sentence as governed by the ordinary regime and considered his parole request on the merits. For the other applicants, the violation continued from the application of section 4 bis to their life sentences until the reform took effect on 31 October 2022.
The Court found no Article 3 violation after those respective dates. It held that the 2022 framework, if interpreted consistently with Convention case-law, offers a realistic prospect of sentence review under sufficiently clear conditions. Review must focus principally on rehabilitation, although courts may consider residual dangerousness if they maintain a proper balance; the compatibility of the thirty-year minimum term must be assessed in light of each case’s circumstances.
The Court also unanimously found an Article 7 violation. Applying section 4 bis transformed the applicants’ initially reducible life sentences into de facto and de jure irreducible sentences, materially increasing the punishment rather than merely changing its administration. For the three applicants whose life-sentence offenses preceded the reform, that amounted to an unforeseeable retrospective heavier penalty. Applying the regime to the fourth applicant was likewise unforeseeable because the convicting judgment had ruled out the mafia-type circumstances used to trigger it.
Key Takeaways
- Converting a reducible life sentence into an irreducible one by restricting access to parole can change the scope of the penalty and engage Article 7.
- A life sentence violates Article 3 when the prisoner lacks a clear, realistic prospect of release and a review centered principally on rehabilitation.
- Italy’s 2022 reform can satisfy Article 3 if domestic courts apply its conditions consistently with Convention principles and properly balance rehabilitation against any continuing dangerousness.
Why It Matters
The judgment distinguishes permissible reform of sentence administration from an unforeseeable increase in punishment. Domestic courts cannot retroactively turn a parole-eligible life sentence into an irreducible one by later characterizing the underlying crime as mafia-related on grounds that were not established at conviction.
At the same time, the Court accepted Italy’s revised parole system in principle, clarifying that the Convention requires a genuine review mechanism rather than guaranteed release. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 2,400 for non-pecuniary damage.