NGO ship case: the definitive acquittal from the kidnapping charge

The legal case originates from the events of August 2019. Initially, the Prosecution had requested a sentence of 6 years in prison for the then-Minister of the Interior, based on the prolonged refusal to assign a safe port to an NGO ship that had rescued about 150 migrants in the Mediterranean. The standoff ended only after the intervention of a Sicilian Prosecutor's Office, which, following an on-board inspection, ordered the preventive seizure of the vessel and immediate disembarkation for health and safety reasons. The core of the trial concerned the nature of the ministerial decision. For the prosecutors, it was a unilateral choice that illegitimately restricted the personal liberty of the shipwrecked individuals. The defense, on the other hand, maintained the theory of the political act, namely a shared government strategy aimed at obtaining the redistribution of migrants within Europe. The proceedings concluded with an acquittal in the first instance on December 20, 2024, which became definitive with the ruling of the Supreme Court in December 2025, establishing the non-existence of the charges.

The regulatory framework consists of criminal code provisions and international conventions.

1. Art. 605 of the Criminal Code punishes kidnapping, aggravated in this case by the status of public official and the presence of minors, with penalties of up to 10 years.
2. Art. 328 of the Criminal Code sanctions the refusal of official acts, i.e., the omission of an act that must be performed without delay for reasons of justice, hygiene, or safety.
3. The SAR Conventions (Hamburg) and UNCLOS (Montego Bay) establish the obligation to provide assistance and to bring the rescued to a safe port in the shortest possible time, prevailing over internal rules by virtue of Art. 117 of the Constitution.

The case law of the Supreme Court has clarified that the obligation to rescue at sea does not end with the mere recovery of shipwrecked persons, but concludes only with disembarkation in a safe place. The judges have repeatedly reiterated that the principle of safeguarding human life at sea constitutes an obligation of a customary and treaty nature. Regarding the distinction between political and administrative acts, established jurisprudence provides that high-level administrative choices are broadly discretionary. Jurisprudence has nonetheless clarified, as confirmed by the definitive outcome of this case, that government policy choices regarding borders, if part of a political strategy and lacking the specific intent to unlawfully deprive liberty, do not constitute the crime of kidnapping.

1. It is essential to rigorously analyze the subjective element of the crime, as administrative or political choices do not constitute a criminal offense in the absence of specific intent.
2. The distinction between a political act and an administrative act requires a careful evaluation of the decision-making context and the collegiality of government action.
3. In cases of alleged deprivation of liberty resulting from acts of authority, proof of illicit coercive intent is essential to overcome the presumption of legitimacy of administrative action.
4. Documenting the chain of command and institutional communications is the key evidentiary element for correctly framing the political nature of decisions.

The previous version of this article incorrectly reported, contrary to primary sources, that the former Minister was awaiting trial with a pending 6-year sentence request. Following an editorial review, the text has been corrected: official records confirm that the defendant was acquitted in the first instance on December 20, 2024, with the sentence becoming definitive in the Supreme Court in December 2025. Furthermore, in the absence of retrievable primary documents for verification, the names of the involved parties have been anonymized.