Revocation of Precautionary Measures under Judgment No. 9375 of 2024

Recently, judgment No. 9375 of April 8, 2024, has offered an important reflection on the revocation of precautionary measures in disciplinary proceedings against magistrates. The Superior Council of the Judiciary has clarified that the mere passage of time is not sufficient to justify the revocation of such measures, requiring instead new and significant elements.

Context of the Judgment

The decision of the Superior Council of the Judiciary arises in a context where precautionary measures can have a significant impact on a magistrate's career and reputation. The judgment highlights that, once a "precautionary judgment" has been established regarding contested facts, the revocation of such a measure cannot be ordered based on purely temporal considerations.

Revocation of precautionary measure - Conditions - New facts indicating the weakening of precautionary needs - Necessity - Relevance of mere elapsed time - Exclusion. The revocation of a precautionary measure imposed on a magistrate, once the so-called "precautionary judgment" has been formed regarding the contested facts and their gravity, presupposes the explicit consideration of elements characterized by novelty, which have not already been subject to assessment, not even on a logical derivation basis from those already examined when applying the measure or appealing it, and which, when evaluated as a whole, are capable of supporting the weakening of precautionary needs, with the mere passage of time not being relevant in itself.

Conditions for Revocation

The judgment emphasizes several fundamental aspects that must be considered for the revocation of a precautionary measure:

• New Elements: It is essential that new facts emerge that have not been previously taken into consideration.
• Weakening of Precautionary Needs: The new elements must clearly demonstrate a reduction in the precautionary needs.
• Unitary Evaluation: The new facts must be evaluated as a whole, rather than in isolation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 9375 of 2024 represents an important clarification on the revocation of precautionary measures, emphasizing that the mere passage of time cannot be considered sufficient grounds for such revocation. Instead, a thorough analysis and the presence of new elements demonstrating an actual weakening of precautionary needs are necessary. This principle not only protects the rights of the magistrates involved but also ensures the integrity of the disciplinary process.