Seizure and Preventive Measures: Analysis of Judgment No. 24709 of 2023

Judgment No. 24709 of January 11, 2023, by the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point in the field of preventive measures and seizure. The decision is situated within a complex regulatory framework, in which the Constitutional Court has already provided significant clarifications with its judgment No. 24 of 2019. This article aims to analyze the contents of this judgment and its effects on seizure orders, making a topic of significant legal interest accessible to all.

Judgment No. 24 of 2019 and Its Effects

The Constitutional Court, with judgment No. 24 of 2019, declared unfounded a question of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b), of Legislative Decree No. 159 of September 6, 2011. This ruling had a direct impact on the management of preventive measures, particularly regarding the seizure procedure. The Court highlighted that the interpretative indications provided do not allow for the revocation of seizure orders already issued, even when these are based on norms affected by constitutional illegitimacy.

Seizure - Interpretative rejection judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 24 of 2019 - Effects on final seizure orders - Applicability - Limits - Case. In terms of preventive measures, the judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 24 of 2019, which declared, among other things, the unfounded nature of the question raised concerning Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b), Legislative Decree No. 159 of September 6, 2011, providing interpretative indications that exclude the vice of unconstitutionality, does not allow for the revocation of the seizure order justified by said norm. (Case in which the request for revocation of the seizure ordered following the classification of the proposed subject both in the category referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a) of Legislative Decree No. 159 of September 6, 2011, affected by the declaration of constitutional illegitimacy, and in that referred to in letter b was rejected).

The Implications of Judgment No. 24709 of 2023

In judgment No. 24709 of 2023, the Court of Cassation rejected the request for the revocation of a seizure order, confirming the applicability of existing provisions despite the legitimacy issues raised in the past. This approach aligns with the principles of legality and legal certainty, ensuring that seizure orders cannot be revoked without adequate legal grounds.

  • Importance of preventive measures in the fight against crime.
  • Recognition of the stability of seizure orders.
  • Need for clear interpretations by higher courts.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 24709 of 2023 and the reference to the Constitutional Court's judgment No. 24 of 2019 emphasize the stability and legal certainty in the field of preventive measures and seizure. The Court of Cassation, by confirming the validity of seizure orders, contributes to creating a clearer and more predictable regulatory framework, essential for the fight against crime and for the protection of public safety. It is essential to continue monitoring how these decisions will influence the future of jurisprudence in this area.

Bianucci Law Firm