Analysis of Judgment No. 25283 of 2023: Freezing Orders and Jurisdictional Competence

The judgment no. 25283 of April 6, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications regarding the management of freezing orders issued by foreign authorities, particularly in light of EU Regulation 2018/1805. The central issue concerns the competence of the Italian judge to decide on requests to replace real estate with sums of money, when such measures have already been recognized and enforced within the national territory.

The Regulatory and Legal Context

EU Regulation 2018/1805, applicable in cases of asset freezing, establishes procedures for the recognition and enforcement of judicial measures issued by other member states. In particular, Article 28 of this Regulation assigns competence to the law of the state of enforcement, effectively excluding the possibility for the Italian judge to intervene on issues concerning the content of the foreign measure.

Freezing measure issued by foreign authority pursuant to EU Regulation 2018/1805 - Recognition by the Italian judge and enforcement in Italy through equivalent seizure - Request by the defendant to replace the frozen real estate with a sum of money - Competence of the Italian judge to decide pursuant to Article 28 of the cited Regulation - Exclusion - Reasons. In cases where a "freezing" measure is issued by the foreign judicial authority, pursuant to EU Regulation 2018/1805, which, following recognition by the Italian judge, has been enforced within the national territory through equivalent seizure, the competence to decide on the request by the defendant to replace the encumbered real estate with a sum of money does not belong to the Italian judge, as it pertains to a matter concerning not the management of the assets subject to "freezing," which is governed by Article 28 of the cited Regulation under the law of the state of enforcement, but rather the content of the original measure, which impacts its effectiveness.

The Implications of the Judgment

The Court clarified that once a freezing measure has been recognized and enforced in Italy, decisions regarding the replacement of assets must follow the rules of the foreign authority that issued the measure. This approach reflects a fundamental principle: the sovereignty of foreign legal norms concerning the enforcement of freezing measures.

  • Recognition of the primacy of the foreign measure.
  • Exclusion of the Italian judge's competence regarding modifications to frozen assets.
  • Need to comply with the procedures established by EU Regulation.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 25283/2023 represents an important step forward in understanding the legal dynamics related to asset freezing in international contexts. It emphasizes how cooperation among member states of the European Union must be respected and how Italian authorities must adhere to what is established by European regulations. For legal practitioners, it is essential to keep these guidelines in mind to ensure the correct management of freezing procedures, avoiding conflicts of competence among different jurisdictions.

Bianucci Law Firm