Commentary on Judgment No. 33623 of 2023: Standing to Appeal and Precautionary Measures

The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 33623 of June 9, 2023, offers significant insights into understanding the dynamics of appeals concerning personal precautionary measures. In particular, it establishes a fundamental principle regarding the standing to appeal when the appellant contests the lack of serious evidence of guilt for only one of the charges against them.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

In this judgment, the Court of Liberty of Bari declared the appeal for cassation filed by the suspect inadmissible, as it contested the precautionary measure applied against them. The Court highlighted that, in this specific case, the potential acceptance of the appeal would not have resulted in any advantage for the appellant, as the precautionary measure was justified also in relation to other criminal charges.

The Ruling of the Judgment

Personal precautionary measures - Precautionary measure relating to a plurality of charges - Limitation of the appeal to only one of them - Standing to appeal - Lack thereof - Reasons - Case law. In the context of precautionary appeals, an appeal for cassation by a suspect who alleges the lack of serious evidence of guilt in relation to only one of the charges is inadmissible due to lack of standing, where the potential acceptance of the appeal would not result in any advantage for the appellant, to whom the measure is also applied for other criminal offenses. (Case where the precautionary measure was issued, in addition to the crime of criminal association, also in relation to numerous predicate offenses of receiving stolen goods and money laundering, while the appeal was limited to contesting the evidentiary gravity with reference only to the predicate offense). (Ref: No. 4038 of 1995, Rv. 202205-01).

Implications of the Judgment

This decision by the Court of Cassation has important implications for suspects and their legal counsel. Indeed, it clarifies that, in the case of precautionary measures linked to multiple charges, contesting only one of them does not justify an appeal. This principle is of vital importance as it highlights the need for a comprehensive analysis of precautionary measures, preventing appellants from attempting to dismantle the precautionary measure through partial challenges.

• Clarity on standing to appeal
• Importance of the plurality of charges
• Strengthening of precautionary measures in complex contexts