Comment on Judgment No. 26849 of 2024: Preventive Seizure and Jurisdictional Competence

The judgment no. 26849 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue concerning asset prevention measures and jurisdictional competence in requests for the return of confiscated goods. This provision, which fits into a complex legal context, is fundamental for understanding how Italian judicial authorities manage confiscation and the rights of third parties.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Preventive confiscation - Request for the return of goods submitted by a third party - Pending appeal judgment - Competence of the appellate judge - Existing - Reasons. In terms of real prevention measures, it is the appellate court, pending the appeal against the provision that ordered the confiscation, that has the competence to decide on the request for the return of goods submitted by the interested third party who claims to be the owner, without issues arising - for which the judge who issued the seizure order still has competence - concerning the management or administration of the assets subject to expropriation.

This maxim clearly establishes that, in the case of an appeal against a confiscation order, it is the appellate court that must decide on the request for return submitted by a third party. This means that the property rights of a third party are not ignored but are instead protected within the appeal process.

The Implications of the Judgment

The implications of this decision are manifold and pertain to various aspects of Italian and European legislation. Firstly, it emphasizes the need to ensure a proper balance between the effectiveness of preventive measures and the protection of individual rights. The Court has, in fact, reiterated the centrality of the principle of legality, enshrined in Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires that any interference with private property must be carried out in accordance with the law.

  • Clarity on jurisdiction: The judgment clarifies that the appellate court has exclusive competence in such cases.
  • Protection of third-party rights: The property rights of third parties are protected even in confiscation situations.
  • Regulatory references: The decision is based on clear laws and regulations, such as Legislative Decree 159/2011.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 26849 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of property rights in the context of preventive measures. The competence recognized to the appellate court in deciding on requests for return ensures a fair process and greater protection for third parties. This approach not only reflects the fundamental principles of Italian law but also aligns with European regulations, emphasizing the importance of a fair and transparent legal system.

Bianucci Law Firm