The Court of Cassation Clarifies Competence on the Return of Seized Property: Judgment No. 27234/2025

Criminal procedural law is constantly evolving. A recurring practical issue concerns the management of seized property: which judge has the authority to decide on the return of an asset when the rightful owner refuses it after an irrevocable judgment? The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 27234 filed on July 24, 2025, has provided essential clarification, defining the boundaries of competence.

The Context: Refusal of Seized Property

Article 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.) provides for the return of seized property to the rightful owner once precautionary needs have ceased or in case of acquittal. However, the rightful owner may refuse to take possession for various reasons (e.g., costs, deterioration). This creates a procedural deadlock: who must resolve this stalemate after an irrevocable judgment? The issue, also addressed by the Court of Appeal of Lecce, is crucial for legal certainty and judicial efficiency.

After the conclusion of the proceedings with an irrevocable judgment, the competence to rule on the seized item, the return of which has been ordered to the rightful owner who has expressly refused it, does not lie with the execution judge but, being a mere executive fulfillment, with the judge who ordered the return.

This maxim is the core of the Cassation Court's decision. In summary, the Court has established that when a criminal proceeding concludes with an irrevocable judgment and the rightful owner refuses the return of seized property, the competence does not lie with the "execution judge." The latter intervenes for post-conviction matters. Instead, competence remains with the "judge who ordered the return," i.e., the merits judge who issued the initial order. The refusal is considered a "mere executive fulfillment" of the order already issued.

Distinction Between Judicial Competences

For clear understanding, it is essential to distinguish the roles:

• Judge who ordered the return: This is the judge who, in the criminal proceedings, ordered the return of the property (Art. 263 c.p.p.). Their function is not exhausted until the fulfillment is completed.
• Execution judge: Regulated by Articles 665 et seq. of the c.p.p., this judge intervenes to resolve issues during the execution of irrevocable criminal judgments. The Court of Cassation has excluded their competence in this context, as the refusal to return does not fall within their typical attributions.

The ruling aligns with a jurisprudential trend that maintains competence with the merits judge for issues related to the cognitive phase or the direct implementation of their orders. The legislative references (Art. 263, 28 paragraph 2, 21 c.p.p. and Art. 86 of the implementing provisions of the c.p.p.) support a systemic interpretation to ensure speed and effectiveness.

Practical Implications and Legal Certainty

Judgment No. 27234/2025 has significant repercussions. It provides clear guidance on competence, eliminating uncertainties that could lead to delays. Certainty of competence is a cornerstone of a fair trial and contributes to:

• Avoiding conflicts: It prevents disputes between judicial authorities.
• Streamlining procedures: It simplifies the process for managing assets, reducing time and costs.
• Ensuring proper destination: It ensures that seized property, even in case of refusal, finds a legally compliant destination, avoiding a legal limbo.

This decision strengthens the coherence of the criminal procedural system.

Conclusions

The Court of Cassation's Judgment No. 27234/2025 is an important piece in criminal procedural law. By clarifying competence on the management of seized property in case of refusal of return after an irrevocable judgment, the Supreme Court has offered a practical and efficient solution. This ruling streamlines judicial activity, avoids resource wastage, and strengthens the principle of legal certainty. Knowing and correctly applying this principle is fundamental for the protection of interests and the proper conclusion of judicial matters.