Commentary on Judgment No. 23062 of 2023: Reclassification of Preventive Seizure
Judgment No. 23062 of February 15, 2023, filed on May 25, 2023, offers interesting insights into the subject of real precautionary measures, particularly regarding the reclassification of preventive seizure intended for confiscation. This decision by the Review Court of Varese emphasizes the importance of "periculum in mora" and the necessity for adequate reasoning by the judge.
The Regulatory Context
Preventive seizure is configured as a precautionary measure provided for by the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically in Article 321. In particular, paragraph 2-bis of this article allows for its application also in view of future asset confiscation. The judgment under review clarifies that the court has the power to reclassify the seizure, but only if it can demonstrate the existence of "periculum in mora".
The Ruling's Headnote
CONDITIONS FOR APPLICABILITY - Review Court - Reclassification of preventive seizure intended for confiscation - Legitimacy - Reasons - "Periculum in mora" - Reasoning - Necessity. In matters of real precautionary measures, the reclassification by the review court of the challenged seizure, ordered pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, into that referred to in paragraph 2-bis of the same article, is legitimate, as in both hypotheses it is a real restraint instrumental to confiscation, provided that the justifying premise of "periculum in mora" is reasoned in relation to the reasons that make the anticipation of the confiscatory effect necessary with respect to the final judgment.
This headnote highlights the legitimacy of reclassifying the seizure, emphasizing that the court must always provide reasoning for its actions, particularly when justifying the urgent necessity of such a measure. Case law has often reiterated that reasoning must be clear and specific to avoid abuses in the use of precautionary measures.
Final Considerations
Judgment No. 23062 of 2023 represents an important step in defining real precautionary measures in Italy. The necessity for rigorous reasoning by the review court not only protects the rights of defendants but also contributes to ensuring fair and balanced justice. This case demonstrates how "periculum in mora" cannot be a mere formality but must represent a concrete legal concern that justifies the adoption of drastic measures such as seizure. Clarity and transparency in legal decisions are essential to maintaining confidence in justice and the legal system as a whole.
