Order No. 13408 of 2024: The 'de plano' Procedure in the Right to the Return of Seized Goods

The recent ruling of the Court of Appeal of Turin, with order no. 13408 of February 27, 2024, provides important clarifications regarding the 'de plano' procedure as provided by Article 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision allows the judge to decide informally on issues concerning the execution of the return of seized goods, a topic of significant interest for legal practitioners and citizens involved in criminal proceedings.

The 'de plano' Procedure and Its Implications

The ruling establishes that:

'De plano' procedure pursuant to Article 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Issues related to the methods of implementing the right to return and the identification of the recipient - Applicability - Reasons. In terms of execution, issues that the judge resolves informally, pursuant to Article 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a provision against which opposition can be brought, also include those related to the concrete methods of implementing the right to return and identifying the recipient, as they pertain to the return of seized goods.

This provision allows the judge to address issues concerning the return of goods in a streamlined and direct manner, avoiding the procedural delays typical of other areas of criminal law. The methods of implementing the right to return and identifying the recipient thus become fundamental aspects that can be resolved without the need for a complex procedure.

Legal and Jurisprudential References

The legal reference to Article 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential for understanding the legal foundations on which the order is based. In this regard, it is also appropriate to mention other articles of the code such as Article 568, paragraph 5, and Article 666, which regulate specific methods of executing precautionary measures and returns. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair balance between the demands of justice and the rights of the parties involved, highlighting how the speed of such procedures can contribute to better access to justice.

  • Article 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Article 568, paragraph 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Article 666, of the Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court on the matter

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 13408 of 2024 represents an important step towards greater efficiency in managing the return of seized goods. The possibility for the judge to address issues informally not only simplifies the procedure but also ensures more effective protection of citizens' rights. It is essential that all parties involved in the criminal process are aware of these provisions to better exercise their rights and duties.

Bianucci Law Firm