The Security Decree is officially law: on 4 June 2025 the Senate approved the final text with 109 votes in favor and 69 againstafter the 29 May also the Room He had given his green light. With the so -called “DDL Safety”, the penal code expands with 14 new crimes and 9 aggravating: The standard mainly concerns subjects of public securitycrimes against the heritageprotection of law enforcement and terrorism. At the end of the vote in the Senate, some opposition parties protested, strongly criticizing the content of the decree which, according to them, “would restore the field of rights and dissent ».
But the decree-law n. 48/2025 really represents a risk for fundamental rights recognized by Italian Constitution? Indeed, the new security decree exacerbates some penalties and penalties related to the events against the public workstransforming the roadblock in a real crime (punishable with prison up to 2 years) and potentially undermining some forms of non -violent protest who have been adopted in recent years by some environmental movements as the latest generation.
Given the large debate on the content of the decree wanted by the Meloni government, it is possible that the Constitutional Court is called to intervene to check the compatibility of the standard with the fundamental rights recognized by the Italian Constitution.
What does the Security Decree provide and what changes: new crimes and aggravating factors
But therefore, What actually changes With the Security Decree? The new law contains in total 39 articles which, as we have already said, introduce into the criminal code 14 new crimes and 9 aggravating circumstances: Among the most discussed there is certainly “the anti-ghandi rule”. The roadblockin fact, from administrative offense becomes a real crime, punished with prison from 6 months up to 2 years in the event that they are More people to obstruct access to streets or tracks through your body.
To this is added then the aggravating circumstance ad hoc in the case of violence or threatens towards a public official during events against the creation of anstrategic public workas in the case of protests against the construction of the Bridge on the Strait or the Tav (the railway line that aims to connect Turin with Lyon and which could arrive by 2033).
The decree then strengthens the penalty even in the case of damage during events: in this case, time in prison it could go from 1 year and 6 months up to 5 years, with a fine up to 15 thousand euros and the arrest in deferred flagrance (i.e. not immediate) when the fact is committed in public place or open to the public.
On the other hand, the state protections towards the public officials: policemen, firefighters or other law enforcement officers investigated for events that took place during the service they will no longer be automatically suspended and the state will take charge of the legal fees up to a maximum of 10,000 euros.
Finally, the law provides for an tightening of the penalty in the case of aggravated scam to the elderlypunishable with imprisonment from 2 to 6 years, and more severe penalties even for those who exploit minors for activities of begging (the practice of asking for alms) or for those who hold terrorist material.
The last points of the decree-law n.48/2025 concern the criminalization from the cannabis-light, with the hemp inflorescences that are now equivalent to illegal cannabis regardless of the percentage of THC present, while it becomes optional what so far was the obligation to postponement of the sentence For pregnant women and Maders detained with children under 3 years.
What are the potential risks for fundamental rights
But in practice, what are the constitutional rights Potentially at risk with the new law? At the moment, several jurists believe that the content of the law violates the Articles 17 and 21 of the Constitutionwho recognize the right to peaceful meeting and free manifestation of one’s own thought:
Article 17: citizens have the right to meet peacefully and without them. For meetings, even in a place open to the public, not notice is required. Meetings in public place must be given notice to the authorities, which can prohibit them only for proven reasons for safety or public safety.
Article 21: Everyone has the right to freely manifest their thoughts with the word, the writing and any other means of diffusion. The press cannot be subject to authorizations or censorships. (…)
The Security Decree, therefore, seems to want discourage citizens in protests against the construction of huge public works, strengthening the penalties for some of the manifestations More frequent in recent months, such as those against the construction of the bridge over the Strait of Messina.
In particular, the new law will affect some forms of directly non -violent protest (including the same road block), which in recent years have been adopted by several environmental movements. Just these forms of protest had been decriminalized In 1999, being closely linked to the freedom of manifestation of thought.
In the same way, more severe penalties have been introduced for the defacement and harvesting of public goods With graffiti and writings, a crime now punishable with imprisonment from 6 months to a 1 year and a half. Also in this case, the main recipients of the provision seem to be the environmental movementswho have often resorted to the paint against statues or public works with the aim of raising awareness of the population on the risks derived from climate change.
What could happen if the Constitutional Court intervened on the new Security Decree
Already in the past few months, the Security Decree has been strongly criticized by numerous jurists, who have defined the unconstitutional measure Because “violated the constitutional prerogatives guaranteed to Parliament, aims to repress dissent and compresses some fundamental rights, a fundamental piece in any democracy”.
Among the favorable To the decree, however, there are those who claim that this law can actually increase the safety of citizens, thanks to a strengthening of penalties against illegal occupations, scams to the elderly and who commits violence against a public official.
It will therefore be the task of the Constitutional Court to establish whether the decree actually represents a risk for some of the fundamental rights sanctioned by the Italian Constitution: if so, the Court could declare unconstitutional the entire law or just one part content. At that point, Parliament will have to remedy, introducing the necessary changes.
The historical precedents: the cases in which the Constitutional Court intervened
Given the large debate, it is therefore likely that the Constitutional Court is called to intervene to verify whether the content of the law is actually compatible with the constitutional principles. It would not be, however, of an isolated case.
Already in 2024 The Constitutional Court had intervened by declaring different parts of the law on the law unconstitutionaldifferentiated autonomy (also known as DDL Calderoli).
In 2019, however, the constitutional illegitimacy had been declared for article 580 of the criminal code, in the part in which he incriminated help to suicide.
In 2014, then, the intervention of the Court had concerned the electoral law known as “Porcellum” (so called because his own author, Roberto Calderolihe called it a “hover”): in this case, the law had been considered unconstitutional with reference to the majority prize and blocked lists, which violated the principles of representation and equality of the vote.
