Seizure and Confiscation: The Court of Cassation (Judgment no. 25819/2025) on Erroneous Review and its Conversion into Opposition

In criminal procedural law, the correct identification of appeal instruments is crucial. An error in the choice of appeal can compromise the right to defense. In this context, the significant ruling of the Court of Cassation, Section III, Judgment no. 25819 of March 21, 2025 (filed on July 14, 2025), clarifies how to handle a review request erroneously filed with the execution judge, affirming fundamental principles for the protection of citizens.

The Legal Context: Real Precautionary Measures and the Execution Judge

Real precautionary measures, such as preventive seizure (art. 321 c.p.p.) and confiscation, directly affect the assets of the defendant or convicted person. Seizure aims to prevent the availability of assets linked to a crime, while confiscation is a patrimonial security measure that deprives the convicted person of illicit assets. The execution judge (art. 665 c.p.p. et seq.) is the body that manages the application of these measures in the phase following a final conviction. The law provides for specific appeal remedies against their orders.

The Procedural Error and the Cassation Court's Solution

The case examined by the Court of Cassation concerned the defendant S. C., who had filed a review request against an order by the execution judge that provided for the confiscation and preventive seizure of his assets. Review is the instrument to contest seizures issued by the G.I.P. or the Tribunal, while opposition is provided for orders from the execution judge (art. 667, paragraph 4, c.p.p.). The question was whether a formally incorrect appeal should be declared inadmissible. The Supreme Court, with the judgment under review, provided a clear answer, based on fundamental principles of our legal system. Here is the summary that synthesizes the decision:

A review request erroneously filed with the execution judge against the order by which the latter has provided for the confiscation of the convicted person's assets and their preventive seizure is not inadmissible, but must be reclassified as an opposition pursuant to art. 667, paragraph 4, cod. proc. pen. and transmitted to the issuing judge, in application of the general principles of preservation of legal acts and "favor impugnationis".

This ruling is of crucial importance. The Court, with President A. G. and Rapporteur A. A., established that an error in the choice of appeal remedy does not render the act inadmissible if its substantial requirements are met. The request, although erroneous, must be "reclassified" as an opposition and transmitted to the competent judge. This is based on two pillars of our procedural system:

• Principle of preservation of legal acts: a procedural act, even if flawed in form, must be saved and produce its effects if its will and purpose are clear and compatible with another act provided for by law. Substance prevails over form.
• Principle of "favor impugnationis": this principle requires procedural rules to be interpreted in a way that favors the exercise of the right to appeal, ensuring the fullness of the right to defense even in the presence of a formal error, provided it does not compromise the substantial validity of the act.

The judgment refers, among others, to art. 568, paragraph 5, c.p.p., which provides for the conversion of erroneously filed appeal remedies, and art. 667, paragraph 4, c.p.p., which governs opposition against orders from the execution judge.

Practical Implications and Protection of the Right to Defense

The decision of the Court of Cassation strengthens the protection of the right to defense, enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution. Despite the procedural error, the citizen S. C. was guaranteed the possibility of having his request examined on its merits, preventing a formal defect from precluding his access to justice. This is a signal against excessive formalism and in favor of more substantial justice. For legal professionals, the judgment underscores the importance of correctly identifying the appeal remedy, but also offers reassurance that, in case of a recoverable error, the system is oriented towards saving the act, ensuring the adversarial principle.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 25819 of 2025 is an example of how jurisprudence adapts norms to constitutional principles. By affirming the reclassification of the review request into an opposition, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the preservation of legal acts and "favor impugnationis". This ruling not only protects the individual's right to defense but also consolidates an interpretative approach that favors substance over form, making the judicial system fairer and more functional. A step forward towards justice that guarantees full protection of rights, overcoming procedural obstacles.