Compatibility between Reporting Obligation and DASPO: Analysis of Judgment No. 25379 of 2023
Judgment No. 25379 of May 9, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a highly relevant issue in criminal law and public order management: the compatibility between the obligation to report to judicial police and a DASPO with a signature obligation. This ruling offers significant insights into how such measures can coexist and the reasons justifying this interaction.
Regulatory Context
The primary regulatory reference is Article 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the obligation to report to judicial police, and Article 6 of Law No. 401 of December 13, 1989, which regulates the DASPO. The latter is a measure that, in cases of violent or disruptive behavior during sporting events, prohibits access to certain locations and establishes signature obligations with the competent authorities.
- Reporting Obligation: Provided to prevent the repetition of unlawful conduct.
- DASPO: Instrumental in preventing individuals from being present in high-risk contexts, such as sporting events.
- Autonomy of Measures: Both pursue different objectives but can coexist.
Analysis of the Judgment's Maxim
Obligation to report to judicial police - DASPO with signature obligation - Compatibility - Reasons. The obligation to report to judicial police pursuant to art. 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can coexist with the signature obligation with the police authority associated with the DASPO ordered by the Quaestor pursuant to art. 6, paragraph 2, of Law No. 401 of December 13, 1989, given their total autonomy, as the former pursues the aim of preventing the repetition of criminal conduct, while the obligation attached to the DASPO is instrumental to ensuring that the recipient does not go to places where sporting events are taking place and has a temporal scope related to their occurrence.
The maxim highlights the importance of considering security measures as autonomous instruments, each with its own specific purposes. The reporting obligation aims to monitor potentially dangerous behavior, while the DASPO focuses on preventing violent acts in sports contexts. The Court, therefore, establishes that there is no incompatibility between the two measures, thus allowing for a more articulated and flexible management of public safety.
Conclusions
Judgment No. 25379 of 2023 represents an important clarification for legal professionals and law enforcement agencies. It underscores the need for an integrated approach to security management, especially in high-risk contexts such as sporting events. The possibility of simultaneously applying the reporting obligation and the DASPO offers an additional tool to ensure public order, prevent unlawful behavior, and protect citizen safety. This ruling, therefore, not only clarifies the compatibility of the measures but also invites reflection on an increasingly efficient and responsible security system.
