Commentary on Judgment No. 45586 of 2024: Breaking of Seals and Liability of the Judicial Custodian

Judgment No. 45586 of November 14, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a matter of significant importance in criminal law: the liability of the judicial custodian in case of breaking of seals. This ruling offers an important clarification on the difference between breaking of seals and failure to report, highlighting the specific responsibilities of the custodian in the context of property under seizure.

The Case Under Review

The case concerned the defendant C. L., the judicial custodian of property under seizure, accused of failing to promptly notify the judicial authority of the breaking of seals by third parties. The Court ruled that such conduct constitutes the aggravated offense of breaking of seals, pursuant to Article 349, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code, excluding the hypothesis of failure to report provided for by Article 361.

Judicial custodian - Omission of timely notice of breaking of seals perpetrated by third parties - Configurability of the offense in the aggravated form referred to in Article 349, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code - Offense of failure to report - Configurability - Exclusion - Reasons. The conduct of the judicial custodian of property under seizure with seals affixed, who, disregarding their legal duty to prevent the event, fails to promptly notify the judicial authority of their breaking by third parties, constitutes the aggravated offense of breaking of seals due to the agent's subjective qualification under Article 349, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code, and not the offense of failure to report provided for by Article 361 of the Criminal Code. There is an apparent conflict of norms between the indicated criminal provisions, to be resolved through the principle of specialty by addition, since, in both, the conduct is carried out by a public official and may consist of failure to report, but only in the specific circumstance of breaking of seals can it be carried out exclusively by the custodian of the property.

Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Court of Cassation underscores the importance of the role of the judicial custodian and their duty of vigilance. Indeed, the breaking of seals is not merely a matter of formal non-compliance but has serious legal and practical consequences. The custodian, as a public official, has the obligation to protect the property and to promptly inform the judicial authority in case of violation. This judgment clarifies that the breaking of seals is considered a more serious offense than failure to report, precisely because of the specificity of the conduct required of the custodian.

• Recognition of the liability of the judicial custodian.
• Clarification of the difference between breaking of seals and failure to report.
• Relevance of the agent's subjective qualification in contesting offenses.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 45586 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in defining the responsibilities of the judicial custodian. It recognizes the seriousness of breaking of seals and clarifies that, in case of failure to report, a different liability regime applies. This decision not only strengthens the role of the custodian but also provides clear guidelines for future similar cases, promoting greater attention and responsibility in compliance with current criminal regulations.