Commentary on Judgment No. 604 of 2024: Precautionary Measures and Registration in the Criminal Record

The judgment no. 604 of November 20, 2024, filed on January 8, 2025, offers an important reflection on the issue of the legitimacy of precautionary measures in the absence of registration in the criminal record. This topic is crucial for understanding the functioning of the Italian legal system, especially in light of the recent legislative changes introduced by Legislative Decree No. 150 of October 10, 2022.

The Regulatory Context

According to the ruling, the application of precautionary measures, such as preventive seizure, is legitimate even for individuals not registered in the criminal record. This aspect is particularly interesting, as it deviates from a traditional view that saw registration as a prerequisite for the adoption of such measures. The provisions of Articles 335-ter and 335-quater of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by the aforementioned legislative decree, do not condition the effectiveness of precautionary measures but have effects on the duration of investigations.

Analysis of the Judgment's Maxim

Registration of criminal allegations - Necessity - Exclusion - Reasons. The application of a precautionary measure against an individual not registered in the criminal record is legitimate, given that the provisions regarding such registration – including Articles 335-ter and 335-quater of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by Legislative Decree No. 150 of October 10, 2022 – do not condition the effectiveness of precautionary measures but produce effects only on the duration of investigations.

The maxim clearly expresses the principle that precautionary measures can be taken even in the absence of registration. This highlights a fundamental aspect: the necessity to protect the legal system and public safety, which may require immediate measures regardless of the status of investigations. Furthermore, it emphasizes that registration is not an obstacle but rather a formality that does not affect the effectiveness of the measures adopted.

Practical and Jurisprudential Implications

This ruling may have several practical implications:

  • Greater flexibility for judicial authorities in adopting precautionary measures.
  • Possibility of rapid intervention in situations of danger or risk of re-offending.
  • Risk of abuse if clear criteria for the application of measures are not established.

Moreover, previous jurisprudence, such as judgment no. 36710 of 2015, has already addressed similar issues, but now the clarification provided by judgment no. 604 of 2024 offers a new reference point for legal professionals.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 604 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying the legitimacy of precautionary measures in the absence of registration in the criminal record. This not only underscores the need to act promptly to ensure public safety but also opens up new reflections on the protection of the rights of the investigated individuals. It is essential that legal professionals follow these developments and consider the implications of new regulations and recent judgments in their daily work.

Bianucci Law Firm