FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GULLOTTI v. ITALY
(Application no. 64753/14)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
Art 8 • Correspondence • Additional limitation of applicant’s right to correspondence during special regime detention • Lack of any explicit reference to specific circumstances justifying the impugned measure • Insufficient evidence of a genuine assessment having been made
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
10 July 2025
 
FINAL
 
10/10/2025
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gullotti v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ivana Jelić, President,
 Erik Wennerström,
 Alena Poláčková,
 Raffaele Sabato,
 Davor Derenčinović,
 Alain Chablais,
 Artūrs Kučs, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 64753/14) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian national, Mr Giuseppe Gullotti (“the applicant”), on 20 September 2014;
the decision to give notice to the Italian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 8 and Article 13 of the Convention regarding the judicial order of 8 January 2013 and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 17 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the limitation of the applicant’s right to correspondence during his detention and the effectiveness of an appeal against the decisions renewing this limitation. The applicant raises complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1960 and is currently detained in the Parma Prison. He was represented by Mr T. Autru Ryolo, a lawyer practising in Messina. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant was convicted of mafia-type offences, including participation in a mafia-type organisation, murder, extortion, unlawful possession of weapons and breach of preventive measures in respect of an individual posing a danger to society. He was arrested in 1998 and was subsequently imprisoned under the special regime provided for in section 41 bis of Law no. 354 of 26 July 1975 (“the Prison Administration Act”). The restrictions imposed by section 41 bis regime consist of limited visits by family members and no visits by non-family members; a prohibition on using the telephone; limits on receiving money and parcels from outside the prison; a prohibition on participating in elections for prison representatives; and a maximum of two hours outdoors per day and in a group of no more than four persons. Additionally, incoming and outgoing correspondence is to be monitored, subject to prior judicial order to be adopted under section 18 ter of the Prison Administration Act. 6. Accordingly, the applicant was subjected to the monitoring of his correspondence, including, according to the available documents, between 5 July 2012 and 27 May 2013. Furthermore, at least since 4 December 2012 the applicant’s right to correspondence was limited, under section 18 ter of the Prison Administration Act, by the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge to only relatives admitted for family visits. 7. Following a request submitted by the prison governor on 7 January 2013 and on the basis of the documents contained in the “dossier concerning the applicant”, on 8 January 2013 the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge renewed for three months (that is, until 7 April 2013) the limitation of the applicant’s right to correspondence to only relatives admitted for family visits. The decision was justified by the applicant’s maintenance of a prominent role within the mafia-type organisation, Cosa Nostra, despite his continued detention since 1998. This conclusion emerged from investigative sources and statements of other prisoners who had cooperated with the judicial authorities. The decision also referred to a favourable opinion issued by the District Anti-Mafia Prosecution Office (Direzione Distrettuale Antimafia). 8. On an unknown date the applicant appealed against the order of the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge under sections 14 ter and 18 ter (6) of the Prison Administration Act (reclamo). According to the latter provision, an appeal can be lodged within ten days from the delivery of the order (see paragraph 19 below). 9. The order was upheld on 12 March 2013 by the Bologna sentence supervision court, which reiterated that, according to the above-mentioned sources, the applicant was still member of the criminal organisation. In its view, the same conclusion could be inferred from the fact that during detention the applicant had not distanced himself from the organisation. 10. On 21 March 2014 the Court of Cassation declared an appeal on points of law by the applicant inadmissible, finding that the limitation of his right was justified. 11. While appeal proceedings against the order of 8 January 2013 were still pending, the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge renewed the limitation in question three times for a duration of three months each time. The orders were delivered on 8 April, 9 July and 7 October 2013. The former and the latter orders, which were made available to the Court, were grounded on the same arguments referred to in the order of 8 January 2013 (see paragraph 7 above). 12. On 30 October 2013 the Minister of Justice issued an order renewing the application of the section 41 bis regime for a period of two years. The reasons given by the Minister of Justice to justify the extension of the special regime rested on information provided by the anti-mafia prosecuting authorities, according to which the applicant had been and still was the leader of a mafia-clan in the area of Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto, with strong connections with other clans. The applicant’s prominent role within the organisation was demonstrated, among other things, by wiretapped conversations between members of the organisation from 2003 referring to the impossibility of communicating with the applicant in person or by mail. 13. On 21 November 2013 the Bologna sentence supervision court granted an appeal by the applicant in which he argued that the order of 8 April 2013 (see paragraph 11 above) was inadequately reasoned. In the Bologna court’s view, the order broadly referred to investigative sources, without providing a detailed account of their content. The court further highlighted that the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge had failed to take into account other relevant information, including a decision of the Turin sentence supervision court of 21 July 2009, which had granted a request by the applicant for early release, and reports issued by the Parma and Cuneo prisons of 20 February and 19 March 2013 respectively, which referred to the applicant’s good conduct and commitment to training activities during detention. The court also referred to disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant by the prison authorities, but it emphasised that they had concerned conduct violations of minor gravity. 14. In the light of that decision, on 27 November 2013 the applicant requested that the orders of 9 July and 7 October 2013 of the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge (see paragraph 11 above) be declared unlawful as grounded on the same arguments as the order of 8 April 2013. 15. On 22 January 2014 the Bologna sentence supervision court found the request inadmissible as not provided for by the Prison Administration Act. 16. In the meantime, on 31 December 2013, after taking note of the order of 21 November 2013 of the Bologna sentence supervision court (see paragraph 13 above), the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge rejected the request of the prison governor dated 4 December 2013 to renew for a further three months the applicant’s right to correspondence to only relatives admitted for family visits. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
17. Section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act, as amended by subsequent legislation, gives the Minister of Justice the power to suspend the application of the ordinary prison regime to detainees who have been convicted of a number of serious crimes, including membership of a mafia‑type criminal organisation and related crimes, in order to prevent further contact with the criminal organisation. Its main features have been outlined in Provenzano v. Italy (no. 55080/13, §§ 83-90, 25 October 2018). As highlighted above (see paragraph 5 above), the restrictions under the section 41 bis regime include the monitoring of correspondence, although that restriction is concretely applied by judicial order under section 18 ter of the Prison Administration Act. 18. Section 18 ter of the Prison Administration Act, introduced by Law no. 95 of 2004 and entered into force on 15 April 2004, governs the limitations and monitoring of the right of correspondence. It provides that limitations on or monitoring of correspondence may be established by means of a reasoned order for a maximum period of six months to prevent the commission of crimes, maintain security in prison and ensure the confidentiality of investigations (subsection 1). These limitations are not applicable to the correspondence maintained by the prisoner with representatives, judicial authorities, parliamentarians, the diplomatic authority of the State of origin or international bodies for the protection of human rights (subsection 2). The order is to be adopted at the request of the prosecuting authorities or the prison governor and should last for a period of no more than six months, but the measures can be repeatedly extended for additional periods of no more than three months each (subsection 3). Complaints against such orders may be lodged in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 14 ter of the Prison Administration Act (subsection 6). 19. Section 14 ter of the Prison Administration Act states that prisoners can lodge an appeal against, among other things, an order adopted under section 18 ter and lays down a time-limit of ten days for adjudication by the sentence supervision court. Afterwards, the order of the sentence supervision court can be appealed against on points of law before the Court of Cassation under section 71 ter of the Prison Administration Act within ten days from its delivery. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
20. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the limitation on his right to correspondence had not been “necessary in a democratic society”, as the order of 8 January 2013 of the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge and subsequent domestic decisions in the appeal proceedings had not been adequately reasoned. Article 8 reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for ... his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Admissibility
21. The Court notes that the Government have not challenged the admissibility of the complaint. It finds that the complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsThe parties’ arguments

22. The applicant argued that the order of 8 January 2013 of the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge (see paragraph 7 above) had not been adequately reasoned. He asserted that it had been based on insufficient, stereotyped reasoning. In that connection, he provided the analogous orders of 8 April and 7 October 2013 which were grounded on the same arguments (see paragraph 11 above). He also highlighted that on 21 November 2013 the Bologna sentence supervision court had granted his appeal against the order of 8 April 2013, finding that it was inadequately reasoned (see paragraph 13 above), and he further argued that, consequently, on 31 December 2013 the Reggio Emilia sentence supervision judge had rejected the request for renewal of the limitation on his right of correspondence (see paragraph 16 above). 23. The Government argued that the order of 8 January 2013 had been adequately reasoned, as it had referred to the ministerial order renewing the section 41 bis regime. They also stressed that the order renewing the regime of 30 October 2013, issued while the appeal against the order of 8 January 2013 had still been pending (see paragraph 12 above), had referred to wiretapped conversations, which had occurred in 2003, between the applicant and members of the criminal organisation, during which the complaint had been made that it had been impossible to contact the applicant in person or by mail. The Government also produced the prison governor’s request for an extension dated 29 March 2013 and a document granting the request dated 8 April 2013 (see paragraphs 11 and 22 above). They highlighted that from that request it appeared that on 5 March 2012 a letter addressed by the applicant to an association had been stopped, as it had contained sentences that could be interpreted as an attempt to leak information from prison.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 8
Outcome: violation