Commentary on Judgment No. 15125 of 2024: Precautionary Measures and Justification

Judgment No. 15125 of March 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on real precautionary measures and the essentiality of justification concerning "periculum in mora" (danger in delay). This legal principle underscores the necessity of an adequate assessment by the judge before adopting drastic measures such as the preventive seizure of assets.

Context of the Judgment

In this specific case, the Court partially annulled a preventive seizure decree issued by the Court of Trento, highlighting the lack of sufficient justification regarding the existence of "periculum in mora." This deficiency led to the decision of referral, with the consequent possibility of re-examining the matter by the competent judge.

The Ruling's Maxim

APPLICABILITY - Annulment for omission of justification on "periculum in mora" - Reiteration of the measure - Admissibility - Reasons. In matters of real precautionary measures, the annulment of a preventive seizure decree due to a total absence of justification regarding "periculum in mora" does not preclude the issuance, against the same person, of a new restraint concerning the same asset, given that a precautionary judgment is not formed when, upon annulment, no assessment, even if only incidental or implicit, has been made regarding the prerequisites for issuing the measure.

This maxim provides an important clarification: the absence of justification does not preclude the possibility of adopting precautionary measures again, but rather implies that the judge must re-examine the situation, taking into account the legal requirements for issuing such measures.

Legal Implications

The judgment is part of a broader legal landscape, where the Court of Cassation has already addressed similar issues in previous rulings. It is crucial for legal practitioners to understand how justification constitutes a cornerstone in the process of adopting precautionary measures. Without a clear and reasoned assessment of "periculum in mora," there is a risk of adopting premature and inadequate provisions.

In particular, the provisions of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 309 and 321, outline the conditions for issuing precautionary measures, emphasizing the need for precise and detailed justification. The established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation has repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of this principle, contributing to ensuring a balance between the demands of justice and the protection of the rights of the individuals involved.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 15125 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying procedures related to precautionary measures. It highlights not only the necessity of adequate justification by the judge but also the possibility of reiterating precautionary measures in the absence of a final judgment, always respecting fundamental rights. It is essential for legal professionals to pay particular attention to these aspects to ensure the correct application of the law and fair justice for all.