A Turin courtroom could become the stage for one of the most significant legal questions of recent years concerning fundamental rights. The Turin Public Prosecutor's Office (Procura della Repubblica di Torino) has formally requested that a question of constitutional legitimacy be raised against the provision introduced by the so-called Security Decree (D.L. 11 aprile 2025, n. 48, convertito dalla L. 9 giugno 2025, n. 80), which has tightened the criminal repression of road blockades. This move opens a debate that will affect anyone who participates in — or organises — protest demonstrations in Italy.
The Background: What Happened on the Turin-Caselle Ring Road
The concrete case that triggered the constitutional question involves approximately two hundred individuals who, during a protest against the situation in the Gaza Strip, physically blocked traffic on the Turin-Caselle ring road (raccordo della tangenziale Torino-Caselle) by placing their bodies in the path of vehicular traffic. This form of protest — the so-called sit-in stradale (road sit-in) — has historically been a widespread tactic in pacifist, environmentalist and trade union movements around the world.
These individuals now risk prosecution under art. 1-bis, comma 2, del D.Lgs. 22 gennaio 1948, n. 66, as amended by art. 14 of the Security Decree: a provision that punishes with imprisonment from six months to two years anyone who obstructs the free flow of road traffic, where the act is committed by multiple persons acting together.
Why the Prosecutor's Office Is Seeking the Intervention of the Constitutional Court
The legal brief (memoria) filed by the Turin Prosecutor's Office sets out three distinct grounds of unconstitutionality, each of which warrants careful consideration.
1. Violation of the Right of Assembly and the Right to Strike (artt. 17 e 40 Cost.)
The Prosecutor's Office observes that the possibility of causing delays or blockages to traffic is inherent in any form of public demonstration, whether static (sit-ins) or dynamic (marches). Criminalising this natural consequence effectively renders the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights a criminal risk. The point is crucial: this is not a matter of protecting violent conduct, but of preserving spaces for civil dissent that are part of the democratic tradition of this country.
2. The Paradox of Striking Workers
The Prosecutor's Office puts forward a vivid and difficult-to-ignore example: if the provision were to be applied literally, workers who gather in front of factory gates and obstruct the adjoining road could be prosecuted for road blockade. Yet decades of settled case law recognise that the right to strike may legitimately be exercised through picketing, provided it does not escalate into violence or threats. The new provision entirely disregards this well-established legal framework.
