Order No. 13408 of 2024: The 'de plano' Procedure in the Right to Return of Seized Property
The recent ruling by the Court of Appeal of Turin, with order no. 13408 of February 27, 2024, offers important clarifications regarding the 'de plano' procedure provided for by art. 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This rule allows the judge to decide without formalities on issues concerning the execution of the return of seized property, a matter of significant interest to legal professionals and citizens involved in criminal proceedings.
The 'de plano' Procedure and its Implications
The headnote of the judgment states that:
'De plano' procedure pursuant to art. 667, paragraph 4, Code of Criminal Procedure - Issues relating to the methods of implementing the right to return and the identification of the recipient - Applicability - Reasons. In matters of execution, issues that the judge resolves without formalities, pursuant to art. 667, paragraph 4, Code of Criminal Procedure, with a measure against which an appeal may be filed, also include those relating to the concrete methods of implementing the right to return and the identification of its recipient, as they are in any case related to the return of seized property.
This provision allows the judge to address issues concerning the return of property in a streamlined and direct manner, avoiding the procedural delays typical of other areas of criminal law. The methods of implementing the right to return and the identification of the recipient therefore become fundamental aspects that can be resolved without the need for a complex procedure.
Legal and Jurisprudential References
The legal reference to art. 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential for understanding the legal basis on which the order is founded. In this regard, it is also appropriate to mention other articles of the code such as art. 568, paragraph 5, and art. 666, which regulate specific methods for the execution of precautionary measures and returns. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly reiterated the importance of ensuring a fair balance between the needs of justice and the rights of the subjects involved, highlighting how the speed of such procedures can contribute to better access to justice.
- Art. 667, paragraph 4, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Art. 568, paragraph 5, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Art. 666, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court on the matter
Conclusions
In conclusion, order no. 13408 of 2024 represents an important step towards greater efficiency in the management of the return of seized property. The possibility for the judge to address issues without formalities not only simplifies the procedure but also ensures more effective protection of citizens' rights. It is essential that all parties involved in the criminal proceedings are aware of these provisions in order to best exercise their rights and duties.
