Commentary on Sentence No. 31121 of 14/05/2024: Defensive Investigations and Denial of Access to Locations

Sentence No. 31121 of May 14, 2024, issued by the Court of Ragusa, provides important reflections on defensive investigations and methods of access to private locations. In particular, the preliminary investigations judge declared the request for access to non-public places inadmissible, raising questions about the nature and limits of preventive defensive investigations.

The Regulatory Context and the GIP's Decision

The provision is based on Article 391-septies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs methods of access to locations in the context of defensive investigations. The Court clarified that the rejection of such a request is not abnormal, as it does not interrupt the proceedings nor is it outside the procedural system. This aspect is crucial, as it highlights the importance of prevention in the realm of defensive investigations.

Preventive defensive investigations - Request for authorization for access to locations ex art. 391-septies, Code of Criminal Procedure - Rejection - Abnormality - Exclusion - Reasons. In the matter of defensive investigations, the measure by which the preliminary investigations judge, due to the preventive nature of the defensive investigation activity, rejects the request for access to private or non-public places, made pursuant to art. 391-septies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not abnormal, as it is a decision that is not subject to appeal, does not fall outside the procedural system, nor does it cause a standstill in the proceedings.

Reflections on Jurisprudence and Practical Implications

The GIP's decision fits into a well-defined jurisprudential framework, where previous rulings (No. 42588 of 2005, No. 46270 of 2005, No. 48475 of 2019) have already addressed similar issues. These rulings confirm that the rejection of requests for access to private locations, when motivated by preventive reasons, does not constitute an exception to the general rules of the process.

  • The rejection is a decision that is not subject to appeal.
  • It does not cause interruptions in the proceedings.
  • It represents a protection for privacy and the rights of third parties.

Conclusions

In conclusion, sentence No. 31121 of 2024 represents an important reference point for defensive investigations in Italy. It confirms the legitimacy of the rejection of access to private locations, emphasizing the need to balance the rights of defendants with those of third parties. The normative and jurisprudential frameworks outlined by the Court provide a clear picture that could influence future defensive investigations.

Bianucci Law Firm