Preventive seizure and automatic conversion into enforcement: analysis of ruling no. 25918 of 2024

The ruling no. 25918 of May 22, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue in criminal procedural law: the automatic conversion of preventive seizure into enforcement. This decision fits into a well-defined legal context, clarifying the necessary conditions for the Administration to proceed with the conversion of a real encumbrance into an enforcement action.

The regulatory context

The Court expressed its opinion regarding Article 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which regulates the matter of preventive seizure, specifying that conversion into enforcement is only possible when the amount of the credit has been determined by the Administration. Specifically, it is essential that the credit is considered certain, liquid, and enforceable in order for this procedure to be activated.

Analysis of the ruling

Credits related to procedural expenses or amounts owed to the Treasury - Automatic conversion - Conditions. Regarding preventive seizure, the automatic conversion into enforcement, pursuant to Article 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, of the real encumbrance established to guarantee the payment of procedural expenses and any other sums owed to the Treasury, operates only when the Administration has determined the amount of the credit, making it certain, liquid, and enforceable.

This ruling clearly highlights that it is not sufficient for a credit to exist; it must have specific characteristics. Certainty implies that the amount is well-defined, while liquidity and enforceability require that the credit is immediately available for collection. Without these conditions, automatic conversion cannot occur, thereby preserving the rights of the defendant and ensuring that unjustified enforcement actions are not pursued.

Practical implications of the ruling

Ruling no. 25918 has important practical implications for legal practitioners and taxpayers. Here are some key points:

  • Certainty of credit: It is essential that the Administration clearly and detailed establish and communicate the credit.
  • Protection for the defendant: The need for a certain credit protects the interests of defendants from excessive enforcement measures.
  • Procedural clarity: The ruling contributes to outlining a clearer regulatory framework, reducing uncertainties related to the conversion of seizures.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling no. 25918 of 2024 represents an important milestone in Italian jurisprudence regarding preventive seizure and conversion into enforcement. It emphasizes the need to ensure that credits are precisely defined and that enforcement procedures are carried out only in the presence of specific conditions. This approach not only safeguards the rights of taxpayers but also promotes greater legality and transparency in administrative action.

Bianucci Law Firm