• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Analysis of the Judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 31704/2024: Precautionary Measures and Domestic Violence

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, identified by number 31704/2024, stands out for its importance in clarifying the boundaries of precautionary measures applicable in cases of domestic violence and stalking. The decision, issued on May 2, 2024, addresses the issue of the application of Article 384-bis of the Criminal Procedure Code, highlighting the need to balance the protection of victims with respect for the rights of the accused.

Context of the Judgment

The case in question involved a provision by the public prosecutor that imposed a ban on approaching places frequented by the victim, without ordering an urgent eviction from the family home. The Preliminary Investigating Judge (G.I.P.) of the Court of Gorizia ruled that, given the lack of cohabitation between the accused and the victim, such a measure could not be validated.

The Court of Cassation confirmed that the ban on approaching cannot be considered an autonomous provision, but must be accompanied by eviction from the family home in the presence of valid reasons for danger.

Legal and Regulatory Principles

The Court invoked the principles of typicity and strictness of precautionary measures, as enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution. In particular, Article 384-bis, paragraph 2-bis, of the Criminal Procedure Code grants the public prosecutor the power to order eviction from the family home only in the presence of cohabitation or danger of its restoration.

  • The main precautionary measure is eviction from the family home.
  • The ban on approaching places frequented by the victim is considered an ancillary measure.
  • Cohabitation is a key element in justifying the application of more severe precautionary measures.

Implications for Victim Protection

This ruling reaffirms the importance of a regulatory approach that recognizes the evolution of family and relational dynamics. The Court emphasized that the definition of domestic violence is not limited to cohabitation but must also consider previous relationships and contexts of danger. It is essential to ensure that protective measures are adequate and proportionate to the risk of violence, in accordance with national and European regulations.

Conclusions

The judgment No. 31704/2024 of the Court of Cassation represents a significant step in the protection of victims of domestic violence and stalking. It clarifies the need for appropriate precautionary measures, highlighting the crucial role of timely and targeted intervention by the competent authorities. In an ever-evolving legal context, it is essential for legal practitioners to stay updated on the norms and jurisprudential interpretations to ensure an effective defense of victims' rights.