Commentary on Ruling No. 28501 of 2024: Hemp Cultivation and Police Controls

Ruling No. 28501 of 2024 represents an important step forward in understanding the regulations regarding hemp cultivation in Italy. The Court addressed the issue of controls carried out under Article 4 of Law No. 242 of 2016, highlighting the distinction between judicial police controls and those aimed at verifying the legality of the cultivation of "cannabis sativa L".

The Legal Context of the Ruling

Law No. 242 of 2016 regulates the cultivation of hemp for industrial and therapeutic purposes, establishing specific requirements for its legality. The control assigned to the State Forestry Corps, now the Forestry Carabinieri, has as its main objective to verify compliance with these requirements. The Court clarified that this type of control has a different nature compared to that typical of judicial police, which is aimed at collecting evidence for the identification of crimes.

Hemp cultivation - Procedure prescribed by Article 4 of Law No. 242 of 2016 - Controls assigned to the State Forestry Corps - Judicial police control - Differences - Consequences. In terms of narcotics, the control assigned, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law December 2, 2016, No. 242, to the State Forestry Corps (currently the Forestry Carabinieri), in relation to the cultivation of "cannabis sativa L", as it is aimed at ascertaining compliance with the conditions under which the aforementioned law establishes the legality of such activity, has a different nature compared to ordinary police control, which is aimed at acquiring evidence for the identification of crimes, so that the failure to comply, by the operating judicial police, with the procedure provided for by the aforementioned Article 4, does not affect the legitimacy of the evidentiary seizure carried out in relation to the crime of unlawful cultivation of plant organisms from which narcotic substances can be obtained.

Implications of the Ruling

The consequences of this ruling are significant for industry operators and citizens engaged in hemp cultivation. In particular, the Court established that non-compliance with the procedures prescribed by Article 4 cannot, by itself, justify evidentiary seizure in the case of illegal cultivation. This implies that, for the validity of a police action, it is essential that the control be carried out according to the methods established by law, in order to ensure the legality of agricultural activity.

  • Distinction between legality controls and police controls.
  • Implications for evidentiary seizure.
  • Strengthening protection for hemp growers.

Conclusions

Ultimately, ruling No. 28501 of 2024 provides an important clarification on the methods of control in hemp cultivation, highlighting the importance of following the procedures established by law to avoid unjustified sanctions. This ruling not only provides greater legal certainty for industry operators but also represents a step towards a more equitable and informed management of regulations regarding hemp in Italy.

Bianucci Law Firm