Judgment No. 16091 of 2023: Reflections on the Generic Nature of the Prohibition of Proximity
The judgment No. 16091 of March 17, 2023, of the Court of Cassation addresses a crucial issue in criminal law: the prohibition of proximity to places frequented by the victim. This measure, often used in cases of domestic violence or stalking, must be issued with a certain level of precision to guarantee the rights of the defendant while simultaneously protecting the victim.
The Principle of Specificity of the Measure
The Court annulled with referral the application order of the prohibition of proximity, highlighting the generic nature of the measure. In particular, it was emphasized that a specific indication of the territorial scope of the prohibition had not been provided. This aspect is fundamental, as the genericity of such a measure can easily lead to an unjustified invasion of the personal freedom of the defendant.
- The necessity of a well-defined territorial scope for the prohibition of proximity.
- The implications on the personal freedom of the defendant.
- The role of the judge in ensuring the specificity of precautionary measures.
Office Detection of Genericity
Another key point of the judgment concerns the office detection of the genericity of the measure. The Court stated that general principles regarding appeals must yield to measures affecting "status libertatis." This means that even in the absence of a specific appeal by the defendant, the judge has the duty to verify the adequacy and specificity of the prohibition of proximity measure.
Prohibition of proximity to places frequented by the victim - Genericity of the measure - Office detection - Existence - Reasons - Case law. In the cassation judgment, the genericity, even partial, of the application measure of the precautionary prohibition of proximity to places frequented by the victim is office detectable, as general principles regarding appeals must yield to measures that can affect "status libertatis." (In application of this principle, the Court annulled with referral the application order of the prohibition of proximity to places frequented by the victim and the obligation to keep a certain distance from them, on the grounds that no specific indication of the territorial scope of the prohibition had been provided).
Conclusions
The judgment No. 16091 of 2023 of the Court of Cassation represents an important step forward in the protection of the rights of both victims and defendants. The specificity of the prohibition of proximity is not merely a formal issue but a substantial guarantee to avoid unjustified sacrifices of personal freedom. Legal practitioners must pay particular attention to these principles in their practical application, so that precautionary measures are always proportionate and respectful of the fundamental rights of all parties involved.
