Analysis of Judgment Cass. pen. no. 31704/2024: Precautionary Measures and Domestic Violence

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, identified by number 31704/2024, is noteworthy for its importance in clarifying the scope of precautionary measures applicable in cases of domestic violence and stalking. The decision, issued on May 2, 2024, addresses the issue of applying Article 384-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, highlighting the need to balance the protection of victims with respect for the rights of the accused.

Context of the Judgment

The case in question concerned a measure issued by the public prosecutor ordering a prohibition of approach to places frequented by the victim, without however ordering the urgent removal from the family home. The Judge for Preliminary Investigations (G.I.P.) of the Court of Gorizia held that, given the non-cohabitation between the accused and the victim, such a measure could not be validated.

The Court of Cassation confirmed that the prohibition of approach cannot be considered an independent measure, but must be accompanied by removal from the family home in the presence of well-founded reasons of danger.

Legal and Regulatory Principles

The Court recalled the principles of typicity and exhaustiveness of precautionary measures, enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution. In particular, Article 384-bis, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants the public prosecutor the power to order removal from the family home only in the presence of cohabitation or the risk of its resumption.

• The primary precautionary measure is removal from the family home.
• The prohibition of approach to places frequented by the victim is considered an accessory measure.
• Cohabitation is a key element for justifying the application of more severe precautionary measures.

Implications for Victim Protection

This judgment reiterates the importance of a regulatory approach that recognizes the evolution of family and relational dynamics. The Court emphasized that the definition of domestic violence is not limited to cohabitation but must also consider previous relationships and contexts of danger. It is essential to ensure that protection measures are adequate and proportionate to the risk of violence, in line with national and European regulations.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 31704/2024 of the Court of Cassation represents a significant step forward in the protection of victims of domestic violence and stalking. It clarifies the need for appropriate precautionary measures, highlighting the crucial role of timely and targeted intervention by the competent authorities. In an ever-evolving legal landscape, it is essential for legal professionals to stay constantly updated on regulations and jurisprudential interpretations to ensure effective defense of victims' rights.