Commentary on Judgment No. 29379 of 2024: Social Dangerousness and Special Surveillance

The judgment no. 29379 of July 3, 2024, published on July 19, raises important questions regarding the assessment of social dangerousness in the context of preventive measures. The Court of Appeal of Ancona rejected the constitutional legitimacy issue raised regarding Article 14, paragraph 2-ter, of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011, establishing that the current legislation does not provide for the verification of dangerousness after a period of two years from the measure of special surveillance.

The Regulatory Context

Legislative Decree No. 159 of September 6, 2011, governs preventive measures, including special surveillance. In particular, Article 14, paragraph 2-ter, establishes that, in the case of the application of the preventive measure, a verification of social dangerousness is not required if two years have elapsed since its application. This aspect has raised questions about the compatibility of the rule with the principles of equality and defense, enshrined in Articles 3 and 24 of the Constitution.

Verification of the persistence of social dangerousness under Article 14, paragraph 2-ter, Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2011 – Lack of provision for the same regarding the proposed individual free after two years or more between the application of the preventive measure of special surveillance and its execution - Question of constitutional legitimacy - Manifestly unfounded - Reasons. The question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 14, paragraph 2-ter, Legislative Decree of September 6, 2011, No. 159, is manifestly unfounded for conflict with Articles 3 and 24 of the Constitution, in the part where it does not provide that, after two years or more between the application of the preventive measure of special surveillance and its execution, the dangerousness of the proposed individual free is verified, as is provided for those who have been detained during that period, being a reasonable legislative choice.

The Court's Reasons

The Court held that the legislative choice not to provide for the verification of dangerousness after two years from the measure is reasonable and justified. In fact, the law aims to balance public safety needs with the individual's right to freedom. The Court emphasized that it is not unreasonable to consider that, after a long period of surveillance, an individual may have regained a condition of normalcy such that further restrictions are unjustified.

  • Special surveillance is a preventive measure rather than a punitive one.
  • The law tends to promote the social reintegration of the individual.
  • The absence of a recurrence of dangerous behaviors over time can be an indicator of change.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 29379 of 2024 represents an important stance regarding the regulation of preventive measures and their application. The choice not to verify dangerousness after a long period of surveillance offers insights into the possibility of balancing public safety and individual rights. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and this judgment may influence future decisions and interpretations in the field of criminal law and prevention.

Bianucci Law Firm