• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Supreme Court and Precautionary Measures: Reflections on Judgment No. 21625/2024

Judgment No. 21625 of May 30, 2024, by the Supreme Court serves as an important reference regarding precautionary measures, especially in the context of criminal organizations aimed at drug trafficking. The Court declared the appeal of A.A. inadmissible, confirming the legitimacy of the precautionary custody ordered by the Court of Catanzaro. This decision provides fundamental insights for understanding the workings of jurisprudence concerning precautionary measures and the evaluation of the severity of evidence.

The Context of the Judgment

The case concerns A.A., accused of participating in a criminal organization aimed at drug dealing. The Court of review had confirmed the precautionary custody, highlighting the active role of the appellant within the organization, describing tasks related to procurement and dealing, and emphasizing the presence of serious evidence of guilt.

The Court reiterated that participation in a criminal organization does not require a formal act of investiture, but rather a functional contribution to the very existence of the organization.

Fundamental Legal Principles

The Court recalled established principles regarding precautionary measures, clarifying that the ruling of the review court does not require an independent evaluation of serious evidence of guilt. It is sufficient that there are adequate and consistent reasons. Furthermore, the assessment of the dangerousness of a suspect is not limited to the operationality of the organization but extends to the possibility of committing further crimes.

  • Serious evidence of guilt must be supported by concrete proof.
  • Participation in a criminal organization can also be demonstrated through indirect behaviors.
  • The assessment of dangerousness must consider not only the current crimes but also the professionalism of the individual.

Conclusion

Judgment No. 21625/2024 of the Supreme Court represents a further step in defining the boundaries and modalities of applying precautionary measures in cases of criminal organizations. It clarifies how jurisprudence continues to maintain a rigorous approach in evaluating the dangerousness of individuals involved in criminal activities, highlighting the importance of a thorough and contextualized analysis of evidence. For lawyers and legal professionals, this judgment offers valuable guidance for managing precautionary measures in criminal law cases.