Compatibility between the obligation to report and DASPO: analysis of ruling no. 25379 of 2023

The ruling no. 25379 of May 9, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a topic of great relevance in criminal law and public order management: the compatibility between the obligation to report to the judicial police and the DASPO with a signing requirement. This ruling provides significant insights into how such measures can coexist and the reasons that justify such interaction.

The regulatory context

The main regulatory reference is Article 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the obligation to report to the judicial police, and Article 6 of Law No. 401 of December 13, 1989, which regulates the DASPO. The latter is a measure that, in the case of violent or disruptive behavior during sporting events, prohibits access to certain places and establishes signing obligations with the competent authorities.

  • Obligation to report: aimed at preventing the recurrence of unlawful conduct.
  • DASPO: instrumental in avoiding the presence of individuals in risky contexts, such as sporting events.
  • Autonomy of measures: both pursue different objectives but can coexist.

Analysis of the ruling's maxim

Obligation to report to the judicial police - DASPO with signing requirement - Compatibility - Reasons. The obligation to report to the judicial police under Article 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can coincide with the signing obligation at the police authority associated with the DASPO imposed by the prefect under Article 6, paragraph 2, of Law No. 401 of December 13, 1989, given their total autonomy, since the former aims to prevent the recurrence of criminal conduct, while the obligation associated with the DASPO is instrumental in ensuring that the recipient does not go to places where sporting events are taking place and has a temporal extension related to their conduct.

The maxim highlights the importance of considering security measures as autonomous tools, each with its specific purposes. The obligation to report aims to monitor potentially dangerous behaviors, while the DASPO focuses on preventing violent acts in the sporting context. The Court, therefore, establishes that there is no incompatibility between the two measures, thus allowing for a more nuanced and flexible management of public safety.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 25379 of 2023 represents an important clarification for legal operators and law enforcement agencies. It emphasizes the need for an integrated approach to security management, especially in high-risk contexts such as sporting events. The possibility of simultaneously applying the obligation to report and the DASPO offers an additional tool to ensure public order, preventing unlawful behaviors and protecting citizens' safety. This ruling, therefore, not only clarifies the compatibility of the measures but also invites reflection on an increasingly efficient and responsible security system.

Bianucci Law Firm