• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Judgment No. 34556 of 2023: the Legitimacy of the Mandatory Travel Document and Necessary Provisions

The recent judgment No. 34556 of April 18, 2023, offers important insights into preventive measures regarding public safety. In particular, the Court of Cassation clarified that the absence of specific provisions renders the mandatory travel document illegitimate. This aspect is crucial for understanding the rights of the individuals involved and the responsibilities of public security authorities.

The Conditions for the Legitimacy of the Mandatory Travel Document

According to the judgment, the provisions to return to the place of residence and to not return to the municipality subject to the expulsion order are essential and inseparable conditions. This means that, to issue a mandatory travel document, it is necessary for both provisions to be present. Their absence leads to the illegitimacy of the measure, as highlighted by the Court.

  • Return to the place of residence: fundamental to ensure compliance with the established norms.
  • Prohibition of return to the municipality: necessary to safeguard public safety and prevent risk situations.

Legal Implications and Consequences of the Judgment

Absence of the order to return to the place of residence and the prohibition of return - Illegitimacy of the administrative measure - Existence - Consequences. In terms of preventive measures, the provisions to return to the place of residence and to not return to the municipality subject to the expulsion order constitute essential and inseparable conditions for the legitimate issuance of the mandatory travel document, so that the lack of one of the two provisions determines the illegitimacy of the measure, which can be identified by the criminal judge in order to disapply it for non-compliance with the typical case, with the consequent non-existence of the offense referred to in Article 76, paragraph 3, Legislative Decree No. 159 of September 6, 2011.

The Court of Cassation stated that the illegitimacy of the measure can be identified by the criminal judge, who has the obligation to disapply it in case of non-compliance with the typical case. This position further consolidates the protection of individual rights and emphasizes the importance of a rigorous application of the norms.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 34556 of 2023 represents a significant step in Italian jurisprudence concerning preventive measures. It reaffirms the importance of the necessary conditions for issuing a mandatory travel document and the consequent illegitimacy of the measure in the absence of such requirements. This principle not only protects the rights of individuals but also ensures a fairer and more just application of public safety measures.