Confiscation, Bankruptcy Trusteeship and Revocatory Action: The Court of Cassation and Judgment 19469/2025

The Italian legal landscape is constantly animated by rulings that delineate the boundaries between different branches of law, often called upon to confront issues of primary importance. One of these particularly complex and delicate intersections concerns the relationship between patrimonial prevention measures – instruments aimed at removing assets from the control of individuals deemed dangerous to public safety – ordinary revocatory action, and insolvency proceedings, particularly bankruptcy. In this context, the recent judgment no. 19469, filed on May 26, 2025, by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. G. D. A. and reported by Dr. B. P. R., offers fundamental clarifications.

The Case Before the Supreme Court: Between Seizure, Confiscation, and Revocation

The issue examined by the Court of Cassation originated from proceedings involving S. F. S.r.l. The essence of the dispute revolved around the enforceability of an ordinary revocatory judgment, issued after the confiscation of an asset, against a bankruptcy trusteeship. The latter, despite being admitted to the liabilities of a patrimonial prevention procedure, had never been called to intervene in the prevention proceedings that concluded with the confiscation of the asset. The trusteeship had limited itself to continuing the civil proceedings until the revocatory action was upheld, with the aim of recovering the asset for the bankruptcy estate.

The Court of Appeal, upholding the decision of the Court of Rome of November 11, 2024, had rejected the trusteeship's arguments. The Court of Cassation was called upon to rule on the legitimacy of this decision, addressing the crucial issue of the prevalence of the rulings of the prevention judge over those of the civil judge concerning revocatory action.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation and the Role of the Prevention Judge

The Supreme Court, with judgment no. 19469/2025, rejected the appeal, establishing a legal principle of great importance. Here is the summary that encapsulates the core of the decision:

In matters of prevention measures, an ordinary revocatory judgment issued after the confiscation of a seized asset, against a bankruptcy trusteeship admitted to the liabilities of a patrimonial prevention procedure that was never called to intervene in the said proceedings concluded with the confiscation of the asset, and which therefore limited itself to continuing the civil proceedings until the revocatory action was upheld, is not enforceable. This is because only the prevention judge is functionally competent to verify the rights that can be asserted against it. (In its reasoning, the Court also affirmed that the advent of seizure and subsequent confiscation renders the upholding of the revocatory action irrelevant, in the absence of a contrary assessment by the prevention judge, nor does it entail the retrocession of the asset).

This means that once confiscation has occurred in prevention proceedings, an ordinary revocatory judgment, even if obtained subsequently by the bankruptcy trusteeship, cannot be invoked to recover the asset. The Court of Cassation reiterates that the prevention judge is the sole body functionally competent to assess the rights that can be asserted over confiscated assets. The advent of seizure and subsequent confiscation effectively renders the upholding of the revocatory action irrelevant, unless there is a specific contrary assessment by the prevention judge. Once confiscated, the asset does not revert to the control of the individual or the bankruptcy estate by virtue of a civil revocatory judgment.

The Regulatory Framework: The Anti-Mafia Code and Third-Party Protection

The decision is based on the regulatory framework outlined by Legislative Decree of September 6, 2011, no. 159, the so-called “Anti-Mafia Code,” particularly articles 54, 55 paragraph 3, 59, and 61. These articles govern patrimonial prevention procedures, seizure, confiscation, and the modalities for third-party protection. The Anti-Mafia Code provides a specific mechanism for verifying credit and real rights claimed by third parties over seized and confiscated assets, assigning exclusive jurisdiction to the prevention judge for such assessments. The objective is twofold:

• To ensure the effectiveness of prevention measures in the fight against organized crime.
• To ensure that third-party rights are examined within a context that considers the specificities of the prevention procedure, avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction or conflicting rulings.

The Court thus reaffirmed that revocatory action, while a legitimate instrument for creditor protection in civil and bankruptcy law, cannot overcome the confiscatory power of prevention confiscation, which has its own autonomous and pre-eminent public function.

Conclusions: A Necessary Balance Between Patrimonial Protection and Bankruptcy Law

Judgment no. 19469/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the complex interaction between patrimonial prevention measures and bankruptcy law. It clarifies that the pre-eminence of prevention confiscation, once it becomes final, prevails over subsequent ordinary revocatory rulings, if the trusteeship has not actively participated in the prevention proceedings to assert its rights before the competent judge. This principle reinforces the idea that third-party protection over assets subject to prevention measures must be exercised within the prevention proceedings themselves, before its natural judge. For legal professionals and companies, this ruling underscores the importance of careful assessment of procedures and timelines for protecting one's rights in contexts involving patrimonial prevention measures, highlighting the need for an integrated and timely approach to avoid losing opportunities for asset recovery.