Judgment No. 17072 of 2023: Alternative Measures to Detention and Their Revocation

The judgment No. 17072 of October 24, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a highly relevant issue within the context of the Italian penitentiary system: the revocation of alternative measures to detention. In particular, the decision clarifies the preclusive effects of provisional revocation in relation to those established by Article 58-quater of the penitentiary system.

The Regulatory Context of Alternative Measures

In Italy, alternative measures to detention are regulated by Law 26/07/1975 No. 354. These measures aim to ensure a form of punishment that does not necessarily involve deprivation of liberty, allowing for a more gradual reintegration into society. Article 58-quater, in particular, establishes the conditions and effects of the granting and revocation of such measures.

  • Alternative measures can be granted provisionally.
  • The revocation of provisional measures does not produce the same effects as the definitive revocation.
  • The legal protection provided by Article 58-quater applies only in the case of definitive revocation.

Analysis of the Judgment

Alternative measures to detention - Provisional granting - Revocation - Preclusive effects referred to in Article 58-quater, penal code - Exclusion - Reasons. Regarding alternative measures to detention, the revocation of a measure provisionally granted by the supervising magistrate is not suitable to produce the preclusive effects referred to in Article 58-quater, penal code, which exclusively result from the revocation of an alternative measure granted definitively by the supervising court.

The Court, with this judgment, establishes that the revocation of a provisionally granted measure does not produce the preclusive effects referred to in Article 58-quater. This article states that only definitive revocation can have significant legal consequences for the affected party. Therefore, the decision emphasizes that provisional revocation should not be confused with definitive revocation, as the latter has the capacity to preclude access to future alternative measures.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17072 of 2023 represents an important clarification regarding alternative measures to detention. It highlights the fundamental distinction between provisional revocation and definitive revocation, stressing the need for a correct interpretation of existing regulations. This jurisprudential orientation could influence future decisions in this area and provides a significant point of reference for lawyers and legal practitioners, as well as for individuals involved in the criminal justice system.

Bianucci Law Firm