Judgment No. 22078 of 2023: The Competence of the Preliminary Investigations Judge in the Return of Seized Assets

The recent judgment No. 22078 of April 18, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications on the competence to decide on requests for the return of seized assets. The issue arises in the context of the dismissal of criminal proceedings, where the role of the preliminary investigations judge as the execution judge is outlined.

Context of the Judgment

The Court established that, in case of a request for the return of seized items submitted after a dismissal order, the competence lies with the preliminary investigations judge. This aspect is crucial as the return of seized assets must occur within a clear and defined regulatory framework, avoiding confusion between the various jurisdictional roles.

In particular, the provision refers to two fundamental articles of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Article 666 and Article 263. Article 666, in fact, establishes the procedures for opposition to confiscation and restitution orders, while Article 263 deals with the formalities for the return of seized assets.

The Ruling of the Judgment

Request for return submitted after the dismissal order - Competence to decide - Preliminary investigations judge acting as execution judge - Existence - Procedure. The competence to decide on the request for the return of seized items, submitted after the conclusion of the proceedings with a dismissal order, rests with the preliminary investigations judge acting as the execution judge. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that orders concerning confiscation and return of seized items are issued without formalities and, therefore, without scheduling a hearing for the parties' appearance, also clarifying that interested parties may file an opposition against them before the same judge, who must proceed according to the rules of an execution incident pursuant to Article 666 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after scheduling a hearing).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The judgment has several practical implications, including:

• Clarity in the procedure for the return of seized assets.
• Definition of the role of the preliminary investigations judge, who becomes central also in the execution phase.
• Possibility for interested parties to oppose restitution orders, thus ensuring due process.

In conclusion, judgment No. 22078 of 2023 represents an important step forward in the regulation of procedures related to seized assets, clarifying the competencies and intervention methods of the judge. This not only offers greater legal certainty but also protects the rights of interested parties, affirming fundamental principles of justice within our legal system.

Conclusions

The decision of the Court of Cassation marks a significant moment in the Italian legal landscape, highlighting the importance of a correct interpretation of procedural rules. The specification of the preliminary investigations judge's competence in matters of returning seized assets contributes to making the legal system clearer and more accessible to all, while ensuring adequate protection of the rights of individuals involved in criminal proceedings.