Commentary on Judgment No. 26849 of 2024: Preventive Confiscation and Jurisdictional Competence

Judgment No. 26849 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue concerning asset-based preventive measures and jurisdictional competence in requests for the return of confiscated assets. This ruling, which is part of a complex legal framework, is fundamental to understanding how Italian judicial authorities manage confiscation and third-party rights.

The ruling's headnote

Preventive confiscation - Request for return of assets filed by a third party - Pendency of the appeal judgment - Competence of the appellate judge - Existence - Reasons. In matters of real preventive measures, the court of appeal, while an appeal against the order of confiscation is pending, has the competence to decide on the request for the return of assets filed by the interested third party who claims ownership thereof, as issues concerning the management or administration of the confiscated assets – for which the competence of the judge who issued the seizure order persists – are not relevant.

This headnote clearly establishes that, in the case of an appeal against a confiscation order, it is the court of appeal that must decide on the request for return filed by a third party. This means that the property rights of a third party are not disregarded but are instead protected within the appeal proceedings.

Implications of the ruling

The implications of this decision are manifold and concern various aspects of Italian and European legislation. Firstly, it underscores the need to ensure a fair balance between the effectiveness of preventive measures and the protection of individual rights. The Court has, in fact, reaffirmed the centrality of the principle of legality, enshrined in Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires that any interference with private property must be carried out in accordance with the law.

• Clarity on competence: The ruling clarifies that the court of appeal has exclusive competence in such cases.
• Protection of third-party rights: Third-party property rights are protected even in situations of confiscation.
• Legal references: The decision is based on clear laws and regulations, such as Legislative Decree 159/2011.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 26849 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in the protection of property rights within the context of preventive measures. The competence recognized to the court of appeal in deciding on requests for return ensures due process and greater protection for third parties. This approach not only reflects the fundamental principles of Italian law but also aligns with European regulations, emphasizing the importance of a fair and transparent legal system.