Analysis of Judgment No. 49757 of 2023: Apprehension of Suspect and Judicial Competencies

The recent judgment No. 49757 of October 27, 2023, by the Court of Cassation offers important clarifications regarding the public prosecutor's jurisdiction when it comes to validating the apprehension of a suspect, especially when this is carried out in a jurisdiction different from the one where the apprehension order was issued. This decision, authored by Judge L. Agostinacchio and presided over by Judge E. Rosi, is part of a complex regulatory framework where the provisions of the code of criminal procedure and previous judicial pronouncements intertwine.

Regulatory Context

The central issue addressed by the Court concerns the functional jurisdiction of the public prosecutor. According to Article 390, paragraph 1, of the code of criminal procedure, the public prosecutor at the court of the place where the apprehension is executed has jurisdiction to request its validation and the issuance of precautionary measures. This principle has been further reiterated by the Court, which emphasized the need for a urgent surrogate intervention, specifying that the impetus must come from the prosecuting office of the place of execution.

Apprehension ordered by the district anti-mafia prosecutor's office - Execution in a territory under another jurisdiction - Request for validation and coercive measure - Attribution to the public prosecutor at the territorially competent court - Existence - Reasons. In the matter of apprehension of a suspect, when the order has been issued by the district anti-mafia prosecutor and the apprehension has been carried out in a territory under another jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the public prosecutor at the court of the place where the apprehension was executed to request its validation and the issuance of the precautionary measure. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the functional jurisdiction of the preliminary investigations judge of the place where the apprehension was executed, provided for, for validation, by Article 390, paragraph 1, of the code of criminal procedure and, for the application of coercive measures, by Article 391, paragraph 5, of the same code, determines an urgent surrogate intervention, with respect to which the impetus must come from the prosecuting office of the place of apprehension). (Conf.: No. 2160 of 1996, Rv. 206126-01).

Implications of the Judgment

The implications of this judgment are manifold and concern not only criminal proceedings but also the protection of the rights of suspects. Assigning responsibility to the public prosecutor of the place where the apprehension is executed ensures greater speed in the validation procedure, avoiding deadlock situations that could infringe upon the rights of the apprehended person. Furthermore, this provision aligns with the principle of effective justice, ensuring that coercive measures are adopted in compliance with legal deadlines.

• Clarity on the public prosecutor's jurisdiction
• Strengthening the protection of suspects' rights
• Efficiency in criminal proceedings

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 49757 of 2023 represents a step forward in defining competencies regarding the apprehension of suspects, clarifying the role of the public prosecutor and ensuring a more efficient and timely management of criminal proceedings. The Court thus reaffirms the importance of coordination between different jurisdictions and respect for fundamental rights during preliminary investigations.