Seizure and Opposition: Analysis of Ruling No. 45818 of 2024

The recent ruling No. 45818 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation provides important insights into the topic of seizure and the ways in which third parties not involved in the proceedings can oppose it. The subject of the ruling concerns the possibility of a third party who owns a confiscated asset opposing a decree rejecting the restitution request, thus highlighting the sensitivity of the asset issue in the penal field.

The Issue of Seizure

Seizure is a tool of criminal law that allows the State to acquire assets derived from illicit activities. However, in the case of seizure ordered by a ruling against a defendant, the situation becomes complicated when a third party, who is the owner of the confiscated asset, has to deal with the absence of an adversarial process. The Court clarified that if this third party files a restitution request with the execution judge and it is rejected, they have the right to file an opposition.

The Remedy of Opposition

Seizure ordered against the defendant by ruling - Restitution request filed by a third party not involved before the execution judge - Rejection - Remedy - Opposition before the same judge - Existence - Content - Case. In the case of a seizure ordered by ruling against the defendant, the third party owner of the confiscated asset who remained outside the first instance judgment, who has filed for the first time, with a negative outcome, a restitution request to the execution judge, can file an opposition before the same judge, pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 676, paragraph 1 and 667, paragraph 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to assert their substantive grievances in an adversarial manner. (Case in which the Court requalified a request for cassation as an opposition, recognizing the need to ensure an adversarial process even for third parties.)

This fundamental passage emphasizes that the opposition must be submitted to the same judge who rejected the restitution request. Furthermore, the Court of Cassation has requalified a cassation appeal as an opposition, thus acknowledging the necessity of ensuring an adversarial process even for external third parties.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The practical implications of this ruling are significant. Firstly, it highlights the protection of the property rights of third parties, who can assert their claims even in the absence of their participation in the main proceedings. Furthermore, the ruling confirms the importance of the adversarial process in criminal procedural law, a cornerstone principle that must be guaranteed at every stage of the proceedings.

  • Rights of external third parties.
  • Adversarial process in criminal proceedings.
  • Opposition procedures and restitution requests.

In conclusion, ruling No. 45818 of 2024 represents a significant step in protecting the property rights of third parties in seizure situations, clarifying the ways in which it is possible to oppose decrees rejecting restitution requests.

Bianucci Law Firm