International Conservatory Seizure: The 21315/2025 Supreme Court Ruling and Relations with San Marino

The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 21315, filed on June 6, 2025, has provided crucial clarification on the application of international conventions for conservatory seizures, outlining judicial cooperation between Italy and the Republic of San Marino in contexts of normative succession.

The Context: Old Conventions and New Agreements

The issue concerned a conservatory seizure requested by San Marino, relating to criminal proceedings initiated before the entry into force of Law no. 51 of April 8, 2024, which ratified the bilateral Agreement on the recognition of seizure and confiscation orders. The question was: which legislation should apply to proceedings registered before the new agreement became operational? The Cassation Court had to resolve this potential intertemporal conflict of norms.

In matters of jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities, a conservatory seizure, requested by the Republic of San Marino and relating to criminal proceedings registered before the entry into force of the Agreement between the Government of the Italian Republic and the Government of the Republic of San Marino concerning the recognition of seizure and confiscation orders, ratified and made enforceable in Italy by Law no. 51 of April 8, 2024, may be adopted based on the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed in Strasbourg on April 20, 1959, ratified and made enforceable in our State by Law no. 215 of February 23, 1961.

The maxim clarifies that, for criminal proceedings registered before the 2024 Agreement, the legal basis for conservatory seizure remains the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959 (Law no. 215 of 1961). This principle ensures continuity in judicial cooperation, even in the absence of more recent bilateral agreements, as in the case of the defendant U. G.

The Impact of the Decision on Judicial Cooperation

The Cassation ruling is fundamental. Rejecting the position of the Preliminary Investigations Judge (GIP) of the Court of Rome, the Court reaffirmed the validity of pre-existing international conventions as essential tools for judicial assistance between States, in line with Article 724 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The main implications are:

• Legal certainty: Clarifies the application of norms in transitional contexts between international agreements.
• Operational continuity: Ensures that cooperation is not hindered by normative delays.
• Validity of conventions: Emphasizes the importance of multilateral conventions as pillars of international collaboration.

Conclusions: A Pillar for Transnational Justice

Ruling no. 21315 of 2025 consolidates a key principle: the effectiveness of pre-existing cooperation instruments even in the face of new agreements. This decision strengthens confidence in the European and international judicial assistance system, ensuring that justice can operate effectively beyond national borders, even in complex situations of normative succession.