Laurin Schmid/SOS MEDITERRANEE
The Court of Brindisi has raised the question of constitutionality following an appeal by SOS MEDITERRANEE against the administrative detention ordered on February 9, 2024, after the disembarkation of 261 survivors in this same city. This detention was based on false accusations made by the Libyan maritime authorities. The entire framework of an unjust, discriminatory, and punitive law is now under scrutiny.
Rome, May 20, 2025—Tomorrow, the Constitutional Court will assess whether Law No. 15/2023 (commonly known as the Piantedosi Law) aligns with the Constitution. The judge of the Court of Brindisi raised the question during the appeal by SOS MEDITERRANEE, which challenged the administrative detention of the Ocean Viking ship on February 9, 2024.
Regardless of the Court's decision, tomorrow is already a historic day. In light of the Italian government's attempts to bypass international law, humanitarian law, and the fundamental duties of humanity through unjust laws, the fact that we are before the highest court in the country underscores that the rule of law cannot be disregarded. Rescuing lives in danger is a right and a duty, and those who wish to overturn this inviolable principle are the ones who should provide justification. The judge in Brindisi has already noted that our search and rescue activities are 'in themselves deserving' of institutional protection.
The lawyers for SOS MEDITERRANEE, Dario Belluccio and Francesca Cancellaro, will present their case before the Supreme Court judges, reiterating the points that prompted the Court of Brindisi to seek intervention from the Constitutional Court.
According to the association’s lawyers, a fundamental legal principle is at stake: “Actions aimed at saving the lives of others cannot be penalised.” They also intend to challenge several aspects of the Piantedosi Law that are questionable from a constitutional standpoint.
The main issues include:
- The Principle of Proportionality and Reasonableness of the Sanction: “The principle of proportionality should always guide legislative decisions when it comes to limiting fundamental rights,” the lawyers stated at the hearing that took place in October 2024 . “In this case, fundamental rights are at stake for those affected by the sanctions, such as rescue ships, and the survivors who are rescued at sea. The detention of the ship represents a sanction which inhibits rescue activities and therefore prevent access to fundamental rights for the people in distress at sea “
- The Principle of Determinacy: This principle is compromised because the law requires determining the Ocean Viking’s unlawful conduct based on assessments from the authorities of a third country, namely Libya. The SOS MEDITERRANEE defense team contends that the law is so vague that it obligates search and rescue (SAR) NGOs to comply with any directives, even those issued by the authorities of other states, such as Libya. And this is meant to apply even when SOS MEDITERRANEE is operating in International waters and using a Norwegian-flagged vessel.
The judges of the Constitutional Court are thus tasked with addressing these concerns raised by the judge on the merits, which question not only specific legislative Provisions, but the entire structure of an unjust, discriminatory, and punitive law.
