Judgment No. 24616 of 2023: Autonomy in Criminal Precaution and Preventive Measures

The recent judgment No. 24616 of March 21, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, has raised important questions regarding the prerequisites for criminal precaution and the adoption of preventive measures. This case, which involves the defendant C. S., highlights the delicate balance between the need to protect public safety and the respect for individuals' fundamental rights.

Prerequisites and Autonomy of Assessments

The Court emphasized the autonomy of the prerequisites for criminal precaution compared to those required for the adoption of preventive measures. In particular, the ruling states:

Prerequisites for criminal precaution - Adoption of real preventive measures - Autonomy of respective assessments - Existence - Verification in criminal proceedings - Relevance of the preventive judgment. The autonomy of the prerequisites for criminal precaution compared to those for the adoption of preventive measures, including asset-related ones, presupposes a specific assessment of the latter, for which the criminal verification can serve as a mere factual assessment, while maintaining the necessity that the judgment regarding dangerousness be made by the preventive judge, without the possibility of relying on a mechanism of automatic recognition of the dangerousness deemed in the context of criminal precaution.

This statement highlights that, although there may be a criminal verification, it is not sufficient to determine a person's dangerousness for the purposes of preventive measures. The assessment must be conducted by the preventive judge, who must consider various factors and cannot simply accept a judgment already expressed in a criminal context.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The implications of this judgment are significant and deserve attention. Among the main observations, the following can be included:

  • Need for a thorough analysis by the preventive judge.
  • Impossibility of automatic recognition of dangerousness from a criminal judgment.
  • Importance of the specificity of the assessment in the context of preventive measures.

The judgment, therefore, not only clarifies the legal principles at stake but also offers a reflection on the need to ensure a fair balance between public safety and individual rights.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 24616 of 2023 represents an important step forward in understanding the dynamics between criminal precaution and preventive measures. It underscores the importance of an autonomous and specific assessment in the context of preventive measures and the necessity to avoid automatic mechanisms that could undermine individuals' fundamental rights. This approach reflects a growing sensitivity towards the protection of human rights within the Italian and European legal systems.

Bianucci Law Firm