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

Commentary on the ruling of the Supreme Court, Criminal Section V, Order No. 55894/2018: Preventive Measures and Social Dangerousness

The ruling of the Supreme Court No. 55894 of 2018 provides an important reflection on preventive measures in the field of public safety. In particular, the Court analyzed the case of P.G.M., whose request for revocation of special surveillance was deemed inadmissible. This article aims to clarify the legal principles underlying this decision, with particular reference to the interpretation of preventive measures.

The motivations behind the decision

The Court of Appeal of Lecce had already rejected the request for revocation of the preventive measure applied to P.G.M., arguing that the reasons put forward were generic and repetitive in relation to those already examined by the Court. The central point of the decision lay in the absence of a "new fact" that could justify the reassessment of the subject's social dangerousness. The Supreme Court confirmed this orientation, emphasizing how special surveillance does not depend on the commission of specific crimes but on the overall social dangerousness of the subject.

The applicability of preventive measures is based on the danger to public safety, understood as a predisposition to crime.

The role of the European Court of Human Rights

The appellant referred to the ruling Contrada v. Italy of the ECHR, arguing that the principles established therein should also apply to his situation. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the principles of the ECHR cannot be automatically extended to cases not directly contemplated, thus maintaining a clear separation between criminal proceedings and preventive measures.

Conclusions

The ruling No. 55894/2018 highlights the importance of a rigorous interpretation of preventive measures in Italian law. The Court reiterated that social dangerousness is not determined solely by individual criminal events but by an overall picture of the subject's behavior. This approach aims to protect public order and ensure collective safety. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's decision clarifies that the appropriateness of the preventive measure must always be assessed based on concrete evidence and not on subjective considerations.