Cassation Ruling 17915/2025: Removal from Home and Restraining Order with Secret Residence

The protection of domestic violence victims is a priority. Precautionary measures such as removal from the family home and restraining orders are crucial tools, but their application can be complex, especially when the victim requires enhanced protection with their residence being kept secret. The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 17915 of 14/02/2025, offers a fundamental clarification.

Precautionary Measures and the Specific Case

The Code of Criminal Procedure, in Articles 282-bis and 282-ter, governs removal from the family home and the prohibition of approaching places frequented by the victim. These measures, often applied in cases of mistreatment (Article 572 of the Criminal Code), require the defendant to leave the residence and maintain a minimum distance from the victim. The key issue addressed by the Supreme Court concerned the effectiveness of the prohibition when, for security reasons, the victim is placed in a reception facility with a secret location, as ordered by the civil judge. The Liberty Court had raised doubts about the indeterminacy of such a prohibition.

The Decisive Ruling of the Cassation (Ruling No. 17915/2025)

The Cassation rejected the objection, providing a decisive interpretation. Here is the summary:

In the context of removal from the family home, supplemented by the accessory prescription of prohibiting approach to places habitually frequented by the victim pursuant to Article 282-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the secrecy of the reception facility where the victim is housed, imposed by the civil judge to enhance their protection, does not lead to indeterminacy of the prohibition, as the generally applicable rule set forth in Article 282-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies, for which the indication of the obligation to maintain a given distance from the victim is sufficient.

This ruling is of fundamental importance. The Court clarifies that the secrecy of the location does not render the prohibition "indeterminate." The core issue is not knowledge of the address, but the obligation imposed on the defendant (such as A. P.M. A. F.) to maintain a pre-established minimum distance from the victim, as provided for by Article 282-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even without knowing the exact location, the defendant must refrain from approaching the victim, respecting the imposed distance. The ruling emphasizes that the protection of the victim must prevail, and that the code of criminal procedure offers the tools to ensure such protection.

Implications and Enhanced Protection

The Cassation's decision strengthens the synergy between civil and criminal justice, with significant implications:

• Maximum Protection: The secrecy of the victim's address does not hinder the effectiveness of criminal precautionary measures.
• Legal Clarity: It provides judges with clear guidance, resolving an interpretative doubt.
• Unambiguous Responsibility: The obligation to maintain distance is a precise and sanctionable duty for the defendant, regardless of their knowledge of the victim's domicile.

This orientation is crucial for ensuring maximum protection for victims of violence, in line with European directives.

Conclusions: Security and Legal Certainty

Ruling No. 17915 of 2025 is a crucial piece in the protection of domestic violence victims. By confirming the validity of removal and restraining order measures even with a secret residence, the Supreme Court reiterates the centrality of protecting the victim. This not only simplifies the application of rules for legal professionals but also sends a clear message: the safety and integrity of victims are absolute priorities, and the judicial system is capable of rigorously guaranteeing them, overcoming any interpretative obstacle.