Comment on Judgment No. 15125 of 2024: Precautionary Measures and Justification

The judgment no. 15125 of March 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on real precautionary measures and the essentiality of justification in relation to "periculum in mora". This legal principle emphasizes the necessity of an adequate assessment by the judge before adopting drastic measures such as the preventive seizure of assets.

The Context of the Judgment

In this specific case, the Court partially annulled a preventive seizure decree issued by the Court of Trento, highlighting the lack of sufficient justification regarding the existence of "periculum in mora". This absence led to the decision to postpone, allowing the competent judge to re-examine the matter.

The Maxim of the Judgment

APPLICABILITY - Annulment for omitted justification regarding "periculum in mora" - Reiteration of the measure - Admissibility - Reasons. In the matter of real precautionary measures, the annulment of a preventive seizure decree due to total lack of justification regarding "periculum in mora" does not prevent the issuance, against the same person, of a new constraint concerning the same asset, since the precautionary judgment does not form when, in the annulment phase, no evaluation has been expressed, even if only incidental or implicit, regarding the requirements needed for the issuance of the measure.

This maxim provides an important clarification: the absence of justification does not preclude the possibility of adopting precautionary measures again, but rather implies that the judge must re-examine the situation, taking into account the legal requirements for issuing such measures.

Legal Implications

The judgment fits into a broader legal framework, where the Court of Cassation has already addressed similar issues in previous rulings. It is essential for legal practitioners to understand how justification constitutes a cornerstone in the process of adopting precautionary measures. Without a clear and reasoned assessment of "periculum in mora", there is a risk of adopting premature and inadequate measures.

In particular, the provisions of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, in Articles 309 and 321, outline the conditions for the issuance of precautionary measures, emphasizing the need for precise and detailed justification. The established case law of the Constitutional Court and the Cassation has repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of this principle, helping to ensure a balance between the demands of justice and the protection of the rights of the individuals involved.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 15125 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying the procedures related to precautionary measures. It underscores not only the necessity of adequate justification by the judge but also the possibility of reiterating precautionary measures in the absence of a judgment, always respecting fundamental rights. It is essential that legal professionals pay particular attention to these aspects to ensure the correct application of the norms and fair justice for all.

Bianucci Law Firm