Commentary on Judgment No. 10576 of 2024: The Impossibility of Appeal for Cassation in Prevention Measure Proceedings

The recent judgment No. 10576 of April 18, 2024, issued by the Trapani Court and presided over by Dr. F. De Stefano, provides important insights into the scope of prevention measures and their impact on creditors' rights. In particular, the Court declared inadmissible the appeal for cassation filed by F. against the decree that rejected the request for admission to payment of a claim secured by a mortgage. This case raises fundamental questions regarding access to justice and the protection of property rights in criminal proceedings.

The Regulatory Context of Prevention Measures

Prevention measures, governed by Law No. 228 of 2012, aim to prevent the risk of illegal activities through the use of confiscated assets. However, the central issue in the judgment under review concerns the impossibility of challenging, in civil court, the decrees related to such measures. In particular, the judges emphasized that the appeal for cassation is not permissible for the decree rejecting the request for admission to payment of the claim, as the civil judge does not have jurisdiction to examine such cases. This principle is based on a clear distinction between the competences of ordinary judges and those of judges specialized in prevention measures.

The Holding of the Judgment and Its Significance

“(APPEAL FOR) - ORDINARY JUDGES' DECISIONS (APPEALABILITY) - DECREES Request for admission to payment of the claim pursuant to art. 1, paragraph 198, Law No. 228 of 2012 - Decree issued in the context of prevention measure proceedings - Appeal - Appeal for cassation in civil court - Inadmissibility - Basis. Against the decree rejecting the request for admission to payment of the claim, formulated by the creditor having a mortgage guarantee on the confiscated assets, pursuant to arts. 1, paragraphs 194 and following, Law No. 228 of 2012 and 665 of the Criminal Procedure Code, issued in the context of prevention measure proceedings, an appeal for cassation in civil court is not admissible and must therefore be declared inadmissible, as the civil judge is institutionally lacking in jurisdiction.”

This holding clearly highlights that the nature of the provision and the context in which it is issued determine its appealability. The Court reiterated that the decree issued in a prevention measure proceeding cannot be subject to appeal for cassation, given that the civil judge lacks the necessary jurisdiction to address such issues. Consequently, creditors, even if holders of mortgage guarantees, find themselves at a disadvantage regarding the satisfaction of their claims.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 10576 of 2024 represents an important development in the case law concerning prevention measures and their impact on creditors' rights. The Court's decision to declare the appeal for cassation inadmissible underscores the need for a clear distinction of competences among the various judicial bodies. It is essential that secured creditors have a clear understanding of the legal limitations to which they are subject, so they can adequately plan their debt recovery strategies.

Bianucci Law Firm