Criminal Cassation: The Procedure for Appeals Against the Rejection of Seized Property Restitution - Judgment No. 30787 of 2025

The Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 30787, filed on September 15, 2025, has provided an important clarification regarding the procedure applicable to appeals against the order of the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (GIP) denying the restitution of assets subject to evidentiary seizure. This ruling is fundamental for understanding procedural dynamics in criminal law, especially in light of the changes introduced by the Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022).

Context: Evidentiary Seizure and Appeal to the Court of Cassation

During criminal proceedings, assets related to the offense or useful for evidence may be subject to evidentiary seizure (Art. 253 c.p.p. - Code of Criminal Procedure). This real precautionary measure, although temporary, affects the patrimonial sphere of the suspect or third parties. Article 263 c.p.p. governs the restitution of seized items, providing for the possibility of requesting the GIP to revoke the seizure when evidentiary needs cease.

Should the GIP reject such a request, as occurred for the defendant E. P. with an order from the Court of Milan dated 01/17/2025, the law allows for an appeal to the Court of Cassation. The issue resolved by judgment No. 30787/2025 concerned the determination of the applicable procedure for such an appeal: whether it should follow the forms of the "non-participatory" chamber procedure or the one that allows for oral hearings.

The appeal to the Court of Cassation against the order of the judge for preliminary investigations issued pursuant to Art. 263, paragraph 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rejecting the request for restitution of assets subject to evidentiary seizure, is decided in chambers with the forms of the non-participatory procedure referred to in Art. 611, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the relevant proceeding does not fall among those for which the subsequent paragraph 1-bis – introduced by Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150 – allows a request for oral hearing rather than written submissions, which represent the default procedural module.

The ruling of the Court of Cassation clarifies that an appeal against a GIP order denying the restitution of seized assets must be processed in chambers according to Article 611, paragraph 1, c.p.p. This means that the decision is made based on written submissions, without oral participation of the parties. The ruling emphasizes that this procedure does not fall within the exceptions introduced by paragraph 1-bis of the same Article 611 by Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022, which, for specific cases, allows for oral hearings. Therefore, for the restitution of seized assets, the "default procedural module" remains written submissions, ensuring speed but limiting direct confrontation.

The Cartabia Reform and Cassation Procedures

The Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150) introduced significant amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, aiming to simplify and expedite proceedings. Among the innovations, the reformulation of Article 611 c.p.p., with the introduction of paragraph 1-bis, extended the possibility of requesting oral hearings in certain cases, representing an opening towards greater party participation in appellate review.

The judgment in question, rejecting E. P.'s appeal against the GIP of Milan's order, has defined the boundaries of this innovation. The Court specified that, despite the reform's general intent to broaden the possibilities for oral proceedings, the procedure for appealing orders denying the restitution of seized assets remains anchored to the non-participatory chamber procedure. This approach aims to ensure swift decisions on ancillary matters such as asset availability, avoiding delays. The decision of the Court of Cassation, presided over by A. C. and reported by P. D. G., balances speed and procedural guarantees.

Practical Implications and Legal Certainty

Clarity in procedural rules is a fundamental pillar. Decisions like Judgment No. 30787/2025 are essential for correctly guiding the work of lawyers and the expectations of citizens. Knowing with certainty the applicable procedure for a specific appeal allows for better preparation of defense strategies. The case law of the Court of Cassation, also referencing previous rulings (such as No. 9857 of 2009 by the United Sections), plays a crucial role in the uniform interpretation and application of the law, contributing to its certainty.

• Appeals against the rejection of evidentiary seizure of assets follow the non-participatory chamber procedure.
• Article 611, paragraph 1, c.p.p. is the reference norm, excluding the application of paragraph 1-bis.
• The Cartabia Reform introduced paragraph 1-bis, but not for this specific matter.
• The decision balances speed and procedural guarantees, which are fundamental for justice.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 30787 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the interpretation of criminal procedural rules concerning seizures and appeal procedures. It reiterates that, for requests for restitution of assets subject to evidentiary seizure and the related appeal to the Court of Cassation, chamber hearings with the forms of the non-participatory procedure, as established by Article 611, paragraph 1, c.p.p., prevail.

This ruling is an example of how case law continues to clarify the application of laws, offering essential guidance for legal practitioners. In an era of legislative reforms aimed at simplification, it is crucial for the Supreme Court to draw clear boundaries, ensuring the coherence of the system and the protection of rights. For those dealing with matters of seizures and appeals, the assistance of an experienced legal professional is indispensable to navigate procedural nuances and ensure the best possible defense.