Commentary on Judgment No. 47388 of 2024: Jurisdiction in Preventive Seizure Matters

The judgment No. 47388 of November 29, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Rome, addresses a crucial issue in criminal law: the jurisdiction to decide on the opposition to the liquidation decree proposed by the judicial administrator. This provision falls within the context of precautionary measures and, in particular, the preventive seizure of assets. The Court clearly establishes that jurisdiction lies with the president of the court to which the judge who issued the contested provision belongs, excluding the applicability of the prevention procedure regulations.

The Jurisdiction of the President of the Court

According to the maxim of the judgment,

Opposition to the liquidation decree proposed by the judicial administrator and custodian of the seized assets - Jurisdiction - President of the court - Applicability of the prevention procedure regulations - Exclusion. The jurisdiction to decide on the opposition to the liquidation decree proposed by the judicial administrator and custodian of the assets subject to preventive seizure lies with the president of the court to which the judge who issued the contested provision belongs, and the regulations regarding expenses, fees, and reimbursements of the judicial administration of the assets subject to preventive seizure and confiscation do not apply to the prevention procedure.

This normative principle highlights the importance of judicial jurisdiction in the matter of preventive seizure. The president of the court plays a fundamental role in ensuring that the opposition to the liquidation decree is handled appropriately and in accordance with current regulations.

Legal and Jurisprudential References

The judgment is based on a series of legal references, including the New Code of Criminal Procedure. In particular, specific articles governing precautionary measures are cited. Among these, it is appropriate to mention:

  • New C.P.P. Att. and Transitional Provisions art. 104 bis par. 1
  • DPR 30/05/2002 No. 115 art. 170
  • Legislative Decree 01/09/2011 No. 150 art. 15
  • New Code of Criminal Procedure art. 321

Furthermore, the jurisprudence has provided important precedents that support the position of the Court of Appeal of Rome, as highlighted in the previous maxims, including No. 35020 of 2008 and No. 19914 of 2019.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 47388 of 2024 represents an important assertion of judicial jurisdiction in the matter of preventive seizure, emphasizing the crucial role of the president of the court. This normative clarification is fundamental to ensure an appropriate management of oppositions to liquidation decrees and to protect the rights of the interested parties. In a complex legal context, it is essential that procedures are followed rigorously and that decisions are made by competent authorities, in order to ensure justice and legality.

Bianucci Law Firm