Analysis of Judgment No. 28059 of 2024: Preventive Seizure and Incompetence of the Judge

The recent judgment no. 28059 of April 23, 2024, issued by the Court of Freedom of Rome, provides important clarifications regarding real precautionary measures, particularly concerning preventive seizure. This case, which involved the defendant M. M., has sparked significant debate among legal scholars and practitioners. The ruling clarifies how a judge can order a preventive seizure even when declaring incompetence, excluding the need to assess the requirement of urgency, a fundamental distinction compared to personal precautionary measures.

The Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The Court established that, according to Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge can order a preventive seizure even if they subsequently declare incompetence. This decision represents a departure from what is established by Article 291, paragraph 2, which requires an assessment of urgency in personal precautionary measures. The ruling states:

Real precautionary measures - Preventive seizure ordered by the judge who simultaneously declares incompetence - Admissibility - Assessment of the urgency requirement under Article 291, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Necessity - Exclusion. In terms of real precautionary measures, the judge who declares territorial incompetence can simultaneously order preventive seizure, pursuant to Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without being required to assess the existence of the urgency requirement, contrary to what is provided by Article 291, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure for personal precautionary measures.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The implications of this decision are multiple and relevant for legal practice. Firstly, it highlights the possibility of immediately safeguarding the interests of the parties involved, even in situations of uncertainty regarding territorial competence. Furthermore, the fact that the judge does not have to assess urgency for real precautionary measures simplifies the decision-making process and allows for a quicker response in critical situations.

  • Greater protection for assets in risk situations.
  • Possibility of rapid actions even in cases of incompetence.
  • Clear distinction between real and personal precautionary measures.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 28059 of 2024 represents a significant step in Italian jurisprudence regarding precautionary measures. It not only clarifies the applicability of preventive seizure in cases of incompetence but also emphasizes the need for a pragmatic approach in managing precautionary measures. The decision reflects a growing attention towards protecting the rights of the parties involved, which can be particularly useful in complex and delicate contexts such as criminal procedures.

Bianucci Law Firm