Commentary on Judgment No. 15852 of 2023: Precautionary Seizure and the Right to be Heard

Judgment No. 15852 of February 28, 2023, represents an important intervention by Italian jurisprudence in the area of real precautionary measures, particularly concerning precautionary seizure. This measure, as established by Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has the primary purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of any asset confiscation at the end of criminal proceedings. However, the judgment in question clarifies the limits of this precautionary measure, emphasizing the interested party's right to be heard.

The Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The Court declared the order of the Court of Santa Maria Capua Vetere, which had confirmed a precautionary seizure for confiscation purposes, illegitimate. The reasoning behind this decision lies in the violation of the defendant's right to be heard, as they cannot be deprived of the opportunity to challenge the reasons for the seizure. In particular, the Court highlighted that the Tribunal did not merely supplement the reasoning of the challenged decree but effectively adopted a different seizure order, in violation of the procedural guarantees provided by law.

Precautionary seizure issued for impediment purposes - Confirmation on review for confiscation purposes - Legitimacy - Exclusion - Reasons. An order is illegitimate where the Tribunal, on review of the precautionary seizure ordered at the request of the public prosecutor pursuant to the first paragraph of art. 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confirms the real precautionary measure for confiscation purposes pursuant to the second paragraph of art. 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given that in doing so, it does not limit itself – as is within its power – to supplementing the reasoning of the challenged decree, but essentially adopts a different seizure order to the prejudice of the interested party's right to be heard.

Implications of the Judgment

The consequences of this judgment are significant for the protection of defendants' rights. Indeed, it underscores how precautionary seizure, while a fundamental tool for combating crime, cannot disregard respect for fundamental rights. In particular, the right to be heard must be guaranteed at every stage of the proceedings, and any decision that may affect this right must be adequately reasoned.

• Strengthening the right to be heard.
• Need for clear and specific reasoning in seizure orders.
• Potential repercussions on the validity of adopted precautionary measures.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 15852 of 2023 represents an important step towards a fairer justice system that respects defendants' rights. It reaffirms the principle that precautionary measures, while necessary in certain contexts, must always be balanced with the right to be heard and to defense. The Court has provided an important clarification on how decisions relating to precautionary seizure should be made, highlighting the importance of reasoning and respect for procedural guarantees.