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

Commentary on Judgment No. 33623 of 2023: Interest in Appeal and Precautionary Measures

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 33623 of June 9, 2023, provides significant insights for understanding the dynamics of appeals related to personal precautionary measures. In particular, it establishes a fundamental principle regarding the interest in appealing when the appellant contests the absence of serious indications of guilt for only one of the charges against them.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

In this ruling, the Court of Freedom of Bari declared the appeal for cassation presented by the accused inadmissible, who contested the precautionary measure applied against them. The Court highlighted that, in this specific case, the potential acceptance of the appeal would not provide any advantage to the appellant, as the precautionary measure was justified also in relation to other criminal charges.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Personal precautionary measures - Precautionary provision relating to a plurality of charges - Limitation of the appeal to only one of them - Interest in appeal - Absence - Reasons - Case law. In terms of precautionary appeals, the appeal for cassation of the accused claiming the absence of serious indications of guilt in relation to only one of the charges is inadmissible for lack of interest, in the event that the potential acceptance of the appeal would not provide any advantage to the appellant, to whom the measure is applied also for other criminal offenses. (Case in which the precautionary measure had been issued, not only for the crime of association for criminal purposes but also in relation to numerous offenses of receiving stolen goods and money laundering, while the appeal was limited to contesting the evidential severity with reference to only the means crime). (Diff: No. 4038 of 1995, Rv. 202205-01).

Implications of the Judgment

This decision by the Court of Cassation has important implications for the accused and their lawyers. In fact, it clarifies that, in the case of precautionary measures related to multiple charges, contesting only one of them does not justify an appeal. This principle is of vital importance as it highlights the need for a comprehensive analysis of precautionary measures, preventing appellants from attempting to dismantle the precautionary measure through partial disputes.

  • Clarity on the interest in appeal
  • Importance of the plurality of charges
  • Strengthening of precautionary measures in complex contexts