Commentary on Judgment No. 16851 of 2024: Jurisdiction and International Letters Rogatory

Judgment No. 16851 of March 21, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important ruling on jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities and international letters rogatory. In particular, the case concerned a seizure executed under a passive letter rogatory and clarified the competence to decide on the maintenance and execution of the precautionary measure in the absence of conventions between the requesting State and the requested State.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court quashed the decision of the Preliminary Investigations Judge of the Court of Milan without referral, establishing that, in the absence of conventions between States, the competence to decide on the necessity of maintaining the seizure lies with the requesting judicial authority. This principle is fundamental to ensuring that the authority that requested the seizure can assess whether the measure is still useful for the ongoing proceedings.

Seizure executed under a passive letter rogatory - Division of jurisdiction in the absence of conventions between the requesting State and the requested State - Competence to decide on the maintenance and execution of the measure - Indication - Delivery of seized items to the requesting authority - Cessation of the jurisdiction of the requested authority. In matters of jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities, the competence to decide on the necessity of maintaining a seizure executed under a passive letter rogatory, in the absence of conventions between the requesting State and the requested State, lies with the requesting judicial authority, as only the latter can establish whether the measure is permitted and is still useful for the proceedings, while the requested judicial authority is competent to rule on the regularity of the executive acts and the acquisition proceedings of the asset until the moment it is delivered to the requesting State, a moment that marks the cessation of its jurisdiction.

Implications of the Judgment

This decision clarifies a crucial aspect of international judicial cooperation, highlighting the importance of a correct division of competences between judicial authorities. The Court emphasized that the requesting judicial authority has the task of assessing whether the seizure should continue, thus ensuring oversight of the necessity and usefulness of the measure. On the other hand, the requested authority is limited to verifying the regularity of the acts until the delivery of the assets.

• The judgment confirms the importance of clarity in international legal relations.
• It strengthens the role of the requesting judicial authority in monitoring precautionary measures.
• It clarifies the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the involved authorities.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16851 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in defining jurisdictional relations between States regarding letters rogatory. The clear distinction of competences between the requesting and requested authorities not only facilitates the work of institutions but also ensures greater protection of the rights of the parties involved. The Court of Cassation has therefore reaffirmed the importance of effective and transparent international cooperation, which is fundamental in an increasingly globalized context.