Commentary on Ruling Order no. 1095 of 2024: Preventive Measures and Custody Expenses

The recent Ruling Order no. 1095 of October 29, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications on preventive measures and the management of custody expenses for seized assets. This ruling proves crucial not only for legal professionals but also for citizens involved in procedures concerning asset seizure.

Context of the Ruling

The central issue addressed by the Court concerns the revocation of asset seizure and the rejection of the request for reimbursement of sums advanced to pay the fees of the judicial administrator's collaborator. In this context, the Court deemed it necessary to reclassify the appeal against the order of rejection as an opposition, pursuant to articles 676, paragraph 1, and 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Custody expenses of the seized asset - Revocation of seizure - Rejection of the request for reimbursement of fees paid to the judicial administrator's collaborator - Appeal to the Court of Cassation - Conversion into opposition - Necessity. In the matter of preventive measures, an appeal to the Court of Cassation against the order rejecting the request, made by the owner of the unseized asset, for reimbursement of sums advanced to pay the fees of the judicial administrator's collaborator must be reclassified as an opposition pursuant to articles 676, paragraph 1, and 667, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the consequent transmission of the case files to the competent judge "in executivis". (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the conversion must be carried out even if the challenged measure was issued following a participatory chamber hearing, rather than "de plano").

Relevance of the Appeal Conversion

In its reasoning, the Court emphasizes the importance of converting the appeal into an opposition, highlighting that this operation is necessary even when the challenged measure was issued after a participatory chamber hearing. This aspect is significant as it ensures that parties have access to a fair trial and that issues relating to custody expenses are examined by a competent judge.

• The conversion of the appeal into an opposition helps to avoid the risk of an unjust judgment.
• It ensures that custody expenses are handled according to appropriate procedural rules.
• The Court reiterated the necessity of correct qualification of claims, which is fundamental for the proper administration of justice.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ruling Order no. 1095 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying the procedures related to preventive measures and custody expenses for seized assets. The ruling not only reclassifies the appeal as an opposition but also underscores the importance of correct and transparent legal management of expenses related to seized assets. This pronouncement offers a useful point of reflection for all legal professionals and for citizens who find themselves facing similar situations.