Commentary on the Ordinance Judgment No. 1095 of 2024: Preventive Measures and Custody Costs

The recent Ordinance No. 1095 of October 29, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications regarding preventive measures and the management of custody costs for seized assets. This ruling is crucial not only for legal practitioners but also for citizens involved in procedures concerning the seizure of assets.

The Context of the Judgment

The central issue addressed by the Court revolves around the revocation of the seizure of assets and the rejection of the request for the return of the sums advanced to settle the fees of the judicial administrator's collaborator. In this context, the Court deemed it necessary to requalify the appeal against the rejection order as an opposition, pursuant to Articles 676, paragraph 1, and 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Custody costs of the seized asset - Revocation of the seizure - Rejection of the request for the return of the fees paid to the collaborator of the judicial administrator - Appeal to the Court of Cassation - Conversion into opposition - Necessity. Regarding preventive measures, the appeal to the Court of Cassation against the order rejecting the request made by the owner of the unseized asset for the return of the sums advanced to settle the fees of the judicial administrator's collaborator must be requalified as opposition under Articles 676, paragraph 1, and 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the consequent transmission of the documents to the competent judge "in executivis." (In the motivation, the Court specified that the conversion must proceed even if the challenged measure was issued following a participatory chamber hearing, rather than "de plano").

Significance of the Conversion of the Appeal

The Court, in its reasoning, emphasizes the importance of converting the appeal into opposition, highlighting that this operation is necessary even when the challenged measure was issued after a participatory chamber hearing. This aspect is significant as it ensures that the parties have access to a fair trial and that issues related to custody costs are examined by a competent judge.

  • The conversion of the appeal into opposition helps avoid the risk of an unjust judgment.
  • It ensures that custody costs are handled according to appropriate procedural norms.
  • The Court reiterated the need for a correct qualification of requests, fundamental for the proper functioning of justice.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 1095 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying the procedures related to preventive measures and the custody costs of seized assets. The judgment not only requalifies the appeal into opposition but also underscores the importance of a correct and transparent legal management of expenses related to seized assets. This ruling offers a useful point of reflection for all legal practitioners and for citizens facing similar situations.

Bianucci Law Firm