The jurisdiction in the return of confiscated goods: commentary on Judgment No. 27160 of 2024

In Judgment No. 27160 of May 31, 2024, the Court of Spoleto addresses a crucial issue in the field of criminal law: the jurisdiction over the request for the return of confiscated goods made by third parties. This topic is of particular importance as it involves not only procedural dynamics but also the rights of individuals who find themselves in a position of third-party status with respect to ongoing criminal proceedings.

The content of the judgment

The Court establishes that the jurisdiction to examine the request for the return of confiscated goods belongs to the judge who issued the last irrevocable order against the defendant. This principle, stated clearly, implies that even if the issue at hand does not directly concern the decision made by the judge in question, their jurisdiction remains unchanged.

Confiscation - Third party - Request in the execution phase for the return of goods - Determination of jurisdiction in case of convictions of the defendant issued by different judges - Last irrevocable order - Existence. In terms of execution, the jurisdiction over the request for the return of confiscated goods, made by the third party, belongs to the judge who issued the last irrevocable order against the defendant, even if the proposed issue does not concern the decision made by them.

The legal implications

This decision is based on established legal principles within our legal system, particularly on the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 240 bis of the Penal Code and Article 12 sexies of Law Decree No. 306 of June 8, 1992 provide the regulatory framework for confiscation and return of goods. Moreover, the New Code of Criminal Procedure, through Articles 665 and 666, establishes the methods for executing judgments.

The principle of jurisdiction, as established by the judgment, reflects the necessity to ensure the proper administration of justice, avoiding jurisdictional conflicts that could slow down or hinder the return of goods to legitimate parties. In this context, it is essential that the third party, who may have suffered direct harm from the confiscation of goods, can approach the competent judge without uncertainties.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 27160 of 2024 of the Court of Spoleto represents an important clarification regarding jurisdiction in the matter of the return of confiscated goods. It emphasizes how the correct identification of the competent judge is essential to guarantee the rights of third parties and for the proper functioning of the legal system. It is reasonable to expect that this judgment may have a significant impact on future case law, providing a reference point for similar cases.

Bianucci Law Firm