The Open Arms case involving League leader Matteo Salvini has reached Italy’s Supreme Court. Prosecutors in Palermo have filed a direct appeal to the highest court, bypassing the usual appellate review process. Salvini faces charges of kidnapping and refusal to perform official duties for blocking the Spanish NGO vessel Open Arms from docking in 2019 with 147 rescued migrants.
This follows Salvini’s acquittal last December. The Palermo Prosecutors Office contends the acquittal stemmed from flawed legal interpretation by the trial court, not factual disputes. They argue the court incorrectly applied international maritime conventions by ruling Italy had no obligation to assign the ship a safe port (Port of Safety), thereby invalidating both charges.
Salvini reacted swiftly, expressing “some surprise, some anger, and frustration” at the appeal. “I had over thirty hearings; the court acquitted me because the act did not exist, recognizing that defending borders is not a crime,” he stated. He framed the case as political, originating from parliament during the Conte II government when left-wing parties allegedly deemed blocking migrant landings illegal.
Prosecutors justify the rare *ricorso per saltum* (leapfrog appeal) by asserting the case hinges purely on legal interpretation, making an intermediate appellate review unnecessary. Their appeal claims the acquittal is “vitiated by violations of law,” specifically citing a February 2025 Supreme Court ruling against the Interior Ministry in the similar Diciotti ship case. That ruling found denying disembarkation violated international rescue obligations, Italy’s Constitution (Article 13), and constituted arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Prosecutors argue the Open Arms trial court failed to properly consider these superior legal norms.