Commentary on Judgment No. 16851 of 2024: Jurisdiction and International Letters Rogatory

The judgment No. 16851 of March 21, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important ruling regarding jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities and international letters rogatory. In particular, the case concerned the seizure executed based on a passive rogatory and clarified the competence to decide on the maintenance and execution of the precautionary measure in the absence of conventions between the requesting state and the requested state.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court annulled without referral the decision of the GIP of the Milan Court, establishing that, in the absence of conventions between states, the competence to decide on the necessity of maintaining the seizure rests with the requesting judicial authority. This principle is fundamental to ensure that the authority that requested the seizure can assess whether the measure is still useful for the ongoing proceedings.

Seizure executed based on passive rogatory - Distribution of jurisdiction in the absence of conventions between the requesting state and the requested state - Competence to decide on the maintenance and execution of the measure - Indication - Delivery of the seized items to the requesting authority - Cessation of jurisdiction of the requested authority. In terms of jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities, the competence to decide on the necessity of maintaining the seizure executed based on passive rogatory, in the absence of conventions between the requesting state and the requested state, lies with the requesting judicial authority, as only this authority can determine whether the measure is permitted and still useful for the proceedings, while the requested judicial authority is competent to verify the regularity of the executive acts and the acquisition process of the asset until the moment it is delivered to the requesting state, a moment that marks the cessation of its jurisdiction.

The Implications of the Judgment

This decision clarifies a crucial aspect of international judicial cooperation, highlighting the importance of a proper distribution of competencies among judicial authorities. The Court emphasized that the requesting judicial authority has the task of assessing whether the seizure should continue, thus ensuring oversight on the necessity and utility of the measure. On the other hand, the requested authority is limited to verifying the regularity of the acts until the delivery of the assets.

  • The judgment confirms the importance of clarity in international legal relations.
  • It strengthens the role of the requesting judicial authority in monitoring precautionary measures.
  • It clarifies the boundary of jurisdiction of the involved authorities.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16851 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining jurisdictional relations between states regarding letters rogatory. The clear distinction of competencies between the requesting and requested authorities not only facilitates the work of institutions but also ensures greater protection of the rights of the parties involved. The Court of Cassation has thus reaffirmed the importance of effective and transparent international cooperation, which is fundamental in an increasingly globalized context.

Bianucci Law Firm