Commentary on Judgment Cass. pen., Section V, Ord. no. 55894/2018: Preventive Measures and Social Dangerousness

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation no. 55894 of 2018 offers an important reflection on preventive measures in public safety matters. In particular, the Court analyzed the case of P.G.M., whose request for the revocation of special surveillance was deemed inadmissible. This article aims to clarify the legal principles underlying this decision, with particular reference to the interpretation of preventive measures.

Reasons for the Decision

The Court of Appeal of Lecce had already rejected the request for revocation of the preventive measure applied to P.G.M., arguing that the reasons put forward were generic and repetitive compared to those already examined by the Tribunal. The central point of the decision lay in the absence of a "new fact" that could justify the reassessment of the subject's social dangerousness. The Court of Cassation confirmed this orientation, emphasizing that special surveillance does not depend on the commission of specific crimes, but on the overall social dangerousness of the subject.

The prerequisite for applying preventive measures is dangerousness to public safety, understood as a predisposition to commit crimes.

The Role of the European Court of Human Rights

The appellant invoked the Contrada v. Italy judgment of the ECtHR, arguing that the principles established therein should also apply to his situation. However, the Court of Cassation clarified that the principles of the ECtHR cannot be automatically extended to cases not directly contemplated, thus maintaining a clear separation between criminal proceedings and preventive proceedings.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 55894/2018 highlights the importance of a rigorous interpretation of preventive measures in Italian law. The Court reiterated that social dangerousness is not determined solely by individual criminal events, but by an overall picture of the subject's behavior. This approach aims to protect public order and ensure collective safety. Ultimately, the decision of the Court of Cassation clarifies that the appropriateness of a preventive measure must always be assessed based on concrete evidence and not on subjective considerations.