In criminal law, personal precautionary measures are essential for the protection of the community. Among these, the temporary prohibition from carrying out certain professional or entrepreneurial activities, pursuant to art. 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is a highly impactful tool. The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 19071 of 20/02/2025 (filed 22/05/2025), has offered a broad interpretation, extending the applicability of this measure also to professions not traditionally "protected" or subject to registration with professional bodies. This decision, presided over by Dr. G. Sarno and reported by Dr. A. Aceto, clarifies crucial aspects for the world of professions, particularly emerging and unregulated ones. Let's analyze the implications of this decision, which rejected the appeal against the order of the Court of Liberty of Brescia of 19/11/2024, concerning the defendant P. P.

Art. 290 c.p.p. and the New Vision of Professional Activities

Article 290 c.p.p. aims to prevent an individual, under investigation or accused, from continuing to carry out an activity through which they have committed or could commit crimes. Historically, its application was more direct for professions requiring registration with professional orders or colleges. However, the labor market evolves, and new professional figures emerge without specific regulatory frameworks. The case in question, concerning the practice of the profession of "holistic masseur," led the Supreme Court to adapt the interpretation of the rule to contemporary reality, ensuring preventive effectiveness even in these new contexts.

The Ruling of Sentence 19071/2025: A Fundamental Principle

The Court of Cassation adopted a substantive approach, focusing on the nature of the activity. The ruling of sentence no. 19071/2025 is clarifying:

In the context of interim precautionary measures, the temporary prohibition from practicing a profession under art. 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies not only to those protected or supervised by special laws and subject to registration requirements, but also in relation to those involving professional or intellectual services carried out under a self-employment contract. (Case concerning the practice of the profession of "holistic masseur").

This principle is of fundamental importance. The Court of Cassation explicitly extends the application of the prohibition beyond "protected" or "supervised" professions, including activities that involve "professional or intellectual services" within a "self-employment contract." The example of the "holistic masseur" is emblematic: although not a regulated profession, it requires specific skills and is based on a relationship of trust, making it potentially susceptible to abuse. The decision aligns with previous consistent rulings (no. 10607 of 2018 and no. 50465 of 2015), consolidating an orientation aimed at:

• Ensuring the effectiveness of criminal prevention.
• Adapting legislation to the evolution of the labor market.
• Protecting the community even in emerging professional sectors.

This reinforces the idea that public protection cannot be limited by restrictive interpretations.

Conclusions: Responsibility and New Professional Horizons

Ruling no. 19071 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation marks a firm point in the interpretation of interim precautionary measures. By extending the application of art. 290 c.p.p. to all professional or intellectual services performed under self-employment, even if not subject to registration with professional bodies, the Supreme Court reaffirms the centrality of the preventive function of criminal law. This decision not only better protects the community but also offers greater clarity for those practicing "unconventional" professions, reminding them that professional responsibility transcends formal boundaries. It is a warning: integrity and compliance with rules are universal principles, valid for every form of work activity.