The Impact of Precautionary Measures on the Suspect's Life

Undergoing a precautionary measure, whether personal (such as detention or house arrest) or real (such as asset seizure), represents one of the most critical moments in a person's life. When such measures are subsequently found to be unfounded, excessive, or illegitimate, the damage suffered is not merely a temporary deprivation of freedom or control over one's assets, but a deep wound to reputation, family life, and professional activity. As a criminal lawyer practicing in Milan, I fully understand that a final acquittal, while fundamental, often is not enough to erase the suffering and financial losses incurred during the proceedings.

The Italian legal system provides for mechanisms of redress, but the path to obtaining them requires specific technical expertise and a rigorous procedural strategy. It is not just about obtaining a favorable judgment, but about demonstrating how the State's actions have unjustly impacted the citizen's personal and financial sphere, paving the way for claims for reparation or compensation.

The Regulatory Framework: Reparation and State Liability

Italian law primarily distinguishes two areas of protection for those who have suffered unjust measures. The first is reparation for unjust detention, governed by Articles 314 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This institution provides for compensation for those who have undergone pre-trial detention and were subsequently acquitted with full discharge, or for those who were detained even though the conditions for applying the measure were not met. It is a subjective right that is independent of judicial error, based on the objective fact of proven innocence.

However, there is a gray area concerning precautionary measures other than detention (e.g., interdictory or real measures) or cases where the damage exceeds standard parameters. Here, the civil liability of magistrates (Law no. 117/1988, as amended by Law no. 18/2015) and the State's liability for the exercise of judicial functions come into play. Obtaining compensation in this area is more complex than reparation for unjust detention, as it often requires demonstrating gross negligence or a misrepresentation of facts and evidence by the judicial body.

Studio Legale Bianucci's Approach to Client Protection

The approach of Avv. Marco Bianucci, an expert criminal lawyer in Milan, is based on a meticulous analysis of the entire procedural process. We do not limit ourselves to submitting the standard application for reparation, but we evaluate every aspect of the case to maximize the compensation due to the client. In cases of illegitimate precautionary measures, the firm works to reconstruct the causal link between the unjust measure and the damage suffered, whether patrimonial (lost earnings, loss of job opportunities) or non-patrimonial (biological, moral, and existential damage).

The defense strategy includes the collection of documentary evidence aimed at demonstrating the original absence of the grounds for precautionary measures or serious indications of guilt. Thanks to consolidated experience in the Milan courts, Avv. Marco Bianucci also assists the client in the delicate phase of damage quantification, utilizing, where necessary, technical consultants to certify the economic and psychological impact of the measure suffered. The goal is to ensure that justice does not stop at acquittal, but continues until concrete recognition of the wrong suffered.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between reparation for unjust detention and damages compensation?

Reparation for unjust detention is an equitable compensation provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure for those who have been deprived of personal liberty and subsequently acquitted, and does not require proof of judicial error. True damages compensation, on the other hand, usually presupposes a wrongful act or gross negligence in the exercise of judicial functions and covers a broader range of damages, including those arising from non-detention measures.

Within what time limit must I submit the reparation claim?

The claim for reparation for unjust detention must be submitted, under penalty of inadmissibility, within two years from the day on which the acquittal or discharge judgment became final, or from the day on which the dismissal order was notified.

Can I claim damages if I have suffered an unjust preventive seizure?

Yes, although the mechanism of Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerns personal liberty, case law and civil liability rules allow for claims for damages resulting from real precautionary measures (such as seizures) if the illegitimacy of the measure and the consequent economic damage, such as the paralysis of a business activity, are proven.

What happens if I exercised my right to remain silent?

This is a delicate point. The law provides that the right to reparation is excluded if the suspect contributed to causing the judicial error through intent or gross negligence. In some cases, silence or ambiguous behavior during interrogations have been interpreted as a contributing factor to the error, hindering compensation. However, as an experienced criminal lawyer, I assess on a case-by-case basis whether such exclusion is applicable or contestable.

Request a Legal Consultation

If you or a family member have been victims of precautionary measures that you believe to be unjust or disproportionate, it is crucial to act promptly to protect your rights. Avv. Marco Bianucci is available to analyze your procedural situation and assess the prerequisites for a claim for compensation. Contact the firm at via Alberto da Giussano, 26 in Milan for a preliminary assessment of your case.