Special Surveillance and Prohibition of Public Gatherings: Ruling 21499/2025 and Sporting Events

The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 21499 of 27/03/2025 (filed on 06/06/2025), has provided a fundamental clarification on personal preventive measures. This decision, which involved V. M. as the defendant and Dr. M. M. Monaco as the rapporteur, annulling the decision of the Court of Appeal of Bari of 06/02/2024, delimits the scope of the prohibition on participating in public gatherings for individuals subject to special surveillance, with direct implications for the application of Legislative Decree of 6 September 2011, No. 159.

The Regulatory Framework: Special Surveillance and Article 8 of Legislative Decree 159/2011

Personal preventive measures, such as special public security surveillance, are tools to prevent crimes by individuals deemed socially dangerous. Article 8 of Legislative Decree 159/2011 (the "Anti-Mafia Code") establishes the requirements. Paragraph 4 imposes the prohibition of "not participating in public gatherings." The Court of Cassation has addressed the applicability of this prohibition to sporting events.

The Crucial Distinction by the Court of Cassation: Public Place vs. Place Open to the Public

The core of Ruling 21499/2025 is the clear distinction between "gatherings in a public place" and "sporting events in places open to the public." The Supreme Court has clarified that the general prohibition in Article 8, Paragraph 4, refers exclusively to gatherings in an intrinsically public place, freely accessible. Sporting events, although open to the public (with regulated access), do not automatically fall into this category.

The summary of the ruling further clarifies:

In the context of personal preventive measures, the prohibition on participating in public gatherings, which must in any case be imposed when applying special public security surveillance, pursuant to Article 8, Paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree of 6 September 2011, No. 159, refers exclusively to gatherings in a public place, and therefore does not include sporting events held in places open to the public. (In its reasoning, the Court added that when, in light of the individual's concrete dangerousness, it is deemed necessary to prevent them from attending certain sporting events, this further prohibition can be imposed pursuant to the fifth paragraph of the aforementioned provision).

The Court specified that a specific prohibition on attending sporting events, if necessary due to the individual's concrete dangerousness, must be imposed under Article 8, Paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree 159/2011, which allows for targeted additional requirements. Without such a specific provision, the general prohibition does not extend to sporting events. This strict interpretation is consistent with the principles of specificity of limitations on personal freedom, also consolidated by the ruling of the United Sections No. 46595 of 2019.

Practical Implications

This ruling has significant repercussions:

• For those under surveillance: They will not automatically incur violations for attending sporting events, unless a specific and reasoned additional requirement is imposed.
• For authorities: They must assess individual dangerousness and, if necessary, impose specific prohibitions (Article 8, Paragraph 5), without relying on broad interpretations of the general prohibition.
• For legal certainty: The ruling clarifies the scope of application of preventive measures, ensuring greater protection of individual freedoms.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 21499 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is an important reference for preventive measures. It reaffirms the need for a strict interpretation of norms that limit freedoms, clearly distinguishing between different types of places. The Supreme Court's intervention highlights how the balance between public safety and fundamental rights must be achieved with precision and guarantees, requiring specific justifications and requirements for further restrictions. This protective approach is fundamental for an effective legal system that respects principles.