The recent judgment No. 28059 of April 23, 2024, issued by the Tribunal of Liberty of Rome, offers important clarifications on real precautionary measures, particularly regarding preventive seizure. This case, which involved the defendant M. M., has sparked significant debate among jurists and legal practitioners. The judgment clarifies how a judge can order a preventive seizure even when declaring themselves incompetent, excluding the need to assess the urgency requirement, a fundamental distinction compared to personal precautionary measures.

Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The Court established that, according to Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge can order a preventive seizure even if they subsequently declare themselves incompetent. This decision represents a derogation from what is established by Article 291, paragraph 2, which requires an assessment of urgency for personal precautionary measures. The maxim of the judgment reads:

Real precautionary measures - Preventive seizure ordered by the judge who simultaneously declares themselves incompetent - Admissibility - Assessment of the urgency requirement under Article 291, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Necessity - Exclusion. In the matter of real precautionary measures, a judge who declares themselves territorially incompetent may simultaneously order a preventive seizure, pursuant to Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without being required to assess the existence of the urgency requirement, unlike what is provided for by Article 291, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure for personal precautionary measures.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The implications of this decision are manifold and relevant to legal practice. Firstly, it highlights the possibility of immediately protecting the interests of the parties involved, even in situations of uncertainty regarding territorial competence. Furthermore, the fact that the judge does not have to assess urgency for real precautionary measures simplifies the decision-making process and allows for a faster response in critical situations.

• Greater protection for assets in risky situations.
• Possibility of rapid actions even in cases of incompetence.
• Clear distinction between real and personal precautionary measures.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28059 of 2024 represents a significant step in Italian jurisprudence concerning precautionary measures. It not only clarifies the operation of preventive seizure in cases of incompetence but also emphasizes the need for a pragmatic approach in managing precautionary measures. The decision reflects a growing attention towards the protection of the rights of the parties involved, which can be particularly useful in complex and delicate contexts such as criminal proceedings.