Commentary on Judgment No. 31121 of 14/05/2024: Defensive Investigations and Refusal of Access to Premises
Judgment No. 31121 of May 14, 2024, issued by the Court of Ragusa, offers important food for thought regarding defensive investigations and methods of access to private premises. In particular, the judge for preliminary investigations declared inadmissible the request for access to places not open to the public, raising questions about the nature and limits of preventive defensive investigations.
The Regulatory Framework and the GIP's Decision
The provision is based on Article 391-septies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs access to premises within the context of defensive investigations. The Court clarified that the refusal of such a request is not abnormal, as it does not interrupt the proceedings nor does it fall outside the procedural system. This aspect is crucial, as it highlights the importance of prevention in defensive investigations.
Preventive defensive investigations - Request for authorization of access to premises pursuant to art. 391-septies, Code of Criminal Procedure - Refusal - Abnormality - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of defensive investigations, the order with which the judge for preliminary investigations, due to the preventive nature of the defensive investigation activity, refuses the request for access to private premises or premises not open to the public, made pursuant to art. 391-septies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not abnormal, as it is a decision, which cannot be appealed, that does not fall outside the procedural system, nor does it cause a standstill in the proceedings.
Reflections on Case Law and Practical Implications
The GIP's decision is part of a well-defined case law framework, where previous judgments (No. 42588 of 2005, No. 46270 of 2005, No. 48475 of 2019) have already addressed similar issues. These rulings confirm that the refusal of requests for access to private premises, when motivated by preventive reasons, does not constitute an exception to the general rules of the trial.
- The refusal is a non-appealable decision.
- It does not cause interruptions in the proceedings.
- It represents a safeguard for the privacy and rights of third parties.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment No. 31121 of 2024 represents an important reference point for defensive investigations in Italy. It confirms the legitimacy of refusing access to private premises, emphasizing the need to balance the rights of the accused with those of third parties. The regulatory and jurisprudential frameworks outlined by the Court offer a clear picture, which could influence future defensive investigations.
