By Anita Bonfiglio (researcher, L’Altro Diritto), Maria Cristina Frosali (researcher, L’Altro Diritto) and Sofia Ciuffoletti (coordinator, L’Altro Diritto).
In Italy, a Judge for Preliminary Investigations ordered the preventive seizure (sequestro preventivo) of seven sections of Florence’s Sollicciano Prison due to serious hygiene and health concerns. Remarkably, the measure was based on occupational health and safety legislation rather than on the Penitentiary Act. It was the first time that prison sections were seized on this legal basis in the country.
On 28 May 2026, the Judge for Preliminary Investigations of Florence (Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari, GIP), at the request of the Prosecutor, ordered the preventive seizure (sequestro preventivo) of seven sections (out of 18) of Sollicciano Prison in Florence due to serious hygiene and health concerns, resulting in their closure.
What is particularly significant, and unprecedented, in this case is the legal mechanism that enabled the GIP to order the seizure of the sections: the judge did not rely on the Penitentiary Act, but instead identified possible violations of occupational health and safety legislation (Legislative Decree No. 81 of 2008, Testo Unico in materia di tutela della salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro). The order explained that the cells are places where prison officers, doctors, nurses, volunteers and employees of external companies work, and where prisoners employed as workers also sleep. They are therefore, for all legal purposes, workplaces and must comply with the hygiene, habitability and safety requirements laid down by law. The order also provided for the transfer of more than 200 prisoners held in the affected sections.
The order followed an investigation prompted by the numerous complaints submitted by prisoners in the preceding months, many with the assistance of the association L’Altro Diritto. The prisoners had reported the inhumane detention conditions, including mould, water leaks, damp, dirt, lack of hot water, and the presence of bedbugs and rats.
The Ministry of Justice challenged the order. The competent court (Tribunale del Riesame) partially rejected the appeal, confirming that occupational health and safety legislation applies to detention facilities, and rejected the Ministry‘s challenge to the seizure of the seven prison sections. However, the court accepted the Ministry’s challenge to both the order requiring the transfer of the prisoners and the transfer plan set out in the GIP‘s decree. The court held that “preventive closure may affect the availability of the premises concerned, but cannot directly impose on the Prison Administration specific organisational arrangements for the relocation of prisoners, since such assessments fall within the remit of the competent administrative authorities in the exercise of their institutional powers”.
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
The European Prison Litigation Network (EPLN) and its members and partners monitor developments in domestic prison law across Europe and provide concise analyses of the most significant changes affecting prisoners’ rights at national level. These updates are intended to support practitioners in identifying emerging European trends, drawing on comparative experiences, and strengthening their legal practice and advocacy in defence of prisoners’ rights.
Funded by the Robert Carr Fund. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the Robert Carr Fund, which cannot be held responsible for them.
