Urban DASPO: Cassation Court on the Prerequisites for Validation of the Reporting Obligation – Ruling No. 23723/2025

The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 23723 of June 20, 2025, has provided a crucial interpretation of the requirements that the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (GIP) must assess to validate the urban DASPO, particularly the obligation to report to a police station. This decision is fundamental for balancing public safety with the protection of personal liberty, establishing precise parameters for the application of restrictive measures.

Urban DASPO: Prevention and Limits

The urban DASPO, introduced by Law Decree no. 14 of 2017 (the "Minniti Decree"), is a preventive tool that allows the Police Commissioner to impose bans on access to specific public areas or venues and, in particular cases, the obligation to report to law enforcement agencies. Affecting personal liberty, such a measure requires validation by the judicial authority (the GIP), as provided for by Article 13 of the Constitution.

Validation Criteria Established by the Cassation Court

Ruling 23723/2025, presided over by Dr. G. S. and reported by Dr. S. A., arose from an appeal against the partial rejection by the GIP of the Tribunal of Trieste of a validation request. The Supreme Court has clearly outlined the prerequisites that the GIP must scrupulously verify to validate the reporting obligation, ensuring the legitimacy and proportionality of the measure:

• Necessity and Urgency: Concrete and current reasons justifying the immediate adoption of the measure.
• Concrete and Current Dangerousness of the Subject: The recipient person must pose a real threat to public safety, supported by specific conduct.
• Attributability of Conduct and Link to Art. 13-bis of D.L. 14/2017: The alleged actions must have been committed by the subject and fall within the normative categories.
• Appropriateness of the Measure's Duration: The duration of the obligation or ban must be proportionate to the seriousness of the facts and the dangerousness.

In the context of provisions for the prevention of disturbances in public establishments and places of public entertainment (so-called urban DASPO), the validation of the Police Commissioner's measure, imposing the obligation to report to a police office or command, presupposes the assessment of all legitimacy prerequisites of the measure, which are: a) the reasons of necessity and urgency that led the Police Commissioner to adopt the measure; b) the concrete and current dangerousness of the subject; c) the attributability to the same of the alleged conduct, and their link to the hypotheses provided for by art. 13-bis of d.l. February 20, 2017, no. 14, converted, with amendments, by law April 18, 2017, no. 48; d) the appropriateness of the measure's duration. (Case relating to the denial of validation of the Police Commissioner's measure only in the part where, together with the prohibition of frequenting public establishments for the sale of food and beverages from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. every day, it imposed the obligation to appear weekly at a judicial police office, an obligation deemed by the judge for preliminary investigations to be disproportionate and unjustified by the conduct indicative of social dangerousness attributed to the subject).

The Cassation Court's ruling clarifies that the GIP must conduct a thorough review. In the specific case, the GIP of Trieste had rejected the validation of the weekly reporting obligation, deeming it "disproportionate and unjustified" in relation to H. S.'s conduct. This demonstrates how, even in the presence of a justified ban, an ancillary obligation may be considered excessive if not strictly necessary and proportionate to the actual dangerousness.

Conclusions: Guarantee and Proportionality

Ruling no. 23723 of 2025 reinforces the principle of proportionality and the judge's guarantee role in applying preventive measures. It emphasizes that public safety must be pursued in compliance with fundamental rights, with effective judicial oversight preventing abuses or excesses. For citizens, this ruling is a reassurance: any limitation of personal liberty must always be justified and proportionate to the facts, ensuring a balance between collective needs and the protection of the individual.