Territorial Jurisdiction in Preventive Measures: The Court of Cassation with Judgment No. 29459 of 2025 Sets the Criteria

The Supreme Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 29459 of 2025, has provided crucial clarification on the determination of territorial jurisdiction in personal preventive measure proceedings. The ruling is particularly relevant when a subject's dangerousness is linked to indications of belonging to a subversive association. Understanding where a proceeding should be based is essential for the correct application of the law and for the effectiveness of actions to protect public safety. Let's delve into the principles established by the Court.

The Context of Preventive Measures and the Issue of Jurisdiction

Preventive measures, governed by Legislative Decree of September 6, 2011, No. 159 ("Anti-Mafia Code"), are non-criminal tools aimed at preventing the commission of crimes by individuals considered socially dangerous. Article 4, paragraph 1, letter D) of Legislative Decree 159/2011 includes among the categories of dangerousness belonging to "associations, groups, or movements... aimed at carrying out subversive or terrorist activities." In this context, identifying the territorially competent judge is often complex. Judgment No. 29459 of 2025, issued by the V Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation (President R. P., Rapporteur A. O.), in rejecting the appeal of the defendant M. A. against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Naples, provided a clear solution to this problem.

In matters of personal preventive measures, territorial jurisdiction in proceedings relating to individuals whose dangerousness is based on indications of belonging to a subversive association shall be identified in the place where the associative body operates, while both the place of formal establishment of the association and the registry data relating to the proposed individual are irrelevant.

The maxim of the Supreme Court is illuminating. The core principle establishes that jurisdiction is not based on merely formal or registry criteria, but on the concrete and material operation of the subversive association. Therefore, it is irrelevant where the association was formally established or where the proposed individual has their residence. What matters is the effective center of the association's activities, the place where its dangerousness manifests and where the indications of belonging materialize. This approach is consistent with the preventive nature of the measures, which aim to counter real and current dangerousness, focusing on the actual projection of illicit activities and ensuring a more targeted and effective state response, in line with Article 270 of the Italian Criminal Code referred to by the same judgment.

Practical Implications and Decisive Criteria

This ruling has significant practical implications. For investigative authorities, it means concentrating efforts on mapping the places where the subversive association concretely carries out its actions. For the defense, it offers a clear parameter for challenging the erroneous identification of jurisdiction if based on criteria other than the "locus operativitatis." The Court has thus reinforced an already consolidated jurisprudential trend, ensuring that territorial jurisdiction is anchored to concrete and verifiable elements.

In summary, the criteria established by the Court of Cassation for territorial jurisdiction are:

• Relevant: The place of effective operation of the associative body.
• Irrelevant: The place of formal establishment of the association.
• Irrelevant: Registry data relating to the proposed individual.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 29459 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is an essential reference for the application of rules on personal preventive measures. By reiterating that territorial jurisdiction is rooted in the place of effective operation of the associative body, the Supreme Court has provided clarity and legal certainty. This orientation not only consolidates a jurisprudential line but also strengthens the effectiveness of preventive tools, directing attention towards the substantive dimension of social dangerousness. For a Law Firm, understanding and applying these principles is fundamental to best assisting its clients.