Commentary on Judgment No. 22694 of 21/04/2023: Analysis of the Public Prosecutor's Interest in Precautionary Measures

Judgment No. 22694 of April 21, 2023, filed on May 25, 2023, has generated considerable interest among legal professionals, particularly concerning personal precautionary measures and the role of the public prosecutor in criminal proceedings. This ruling by the Court of Cassation clarifies the importance of the public prosecutor's interest in appealing, establishing fundamental criteria for assessing orders issued by review courts.

Context of the Judgment

In the specific case, the Court examined an appeal filed by the public prosecutor against an order from the review court which, while confirming the strong evidence for some of the alleged offenses, excluded such evidence for others and partially annulled the original measure. The central issue thus focused on the public prosecutor's interest in maintaining a clear and consolidated position regarding the "precautionary judgment," even in cases where the measure was not upheld for all alleged offenses.

The Meaning of the Interest in Appealing

Personal precautionary measures - Order of the review court excluding strong evidence for only some of the alleged offenses - Appeal to the Court of Cassation by the public prosecutor - Interest in appealing - Existence - Reasons. The public prosecutor has an interest in filing an appeal to the Court of Cassation against the order of the review court which, despite confirming the existence of strong evidence in relation to some of the alleged crimes and ordering the maintenance of the precautionary measure, has nevertheless partially annulled the initial measure in relation to other crimes for which the measure itself was adopted. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the public prosecutor has an interest in the crystallization of the so-called "precautionary judgment" also with regard to the crimes for which the initial order was annulled).

This summary highlights how the public prosecutor must not only act to protect public order but also has the need to ensure a certain coherence and stability in precautionary measures, which are of fundamental importance during investigations. The Court, in fact, emphasized that the partial annulment of the precautionary measure in relation to certain offenses must not prejudice the interest in maintaining a stable legal framework regarding precautionary measures.

Implications for Jurisprudence and Criminal Procedure

Judgment No. 22694 of 2023 is part of a line of case law aimed at protecting the rights of the parties involved, establishing a balance between the need for defense and the necessity of crime prevention. Previous decisions, such as No. 20286 of 2020 and No. 19540 of 2022, show a consistent orientation of the Court in recognizing the importance of the public prosecutor's interest in the precautionary phase.

• Clarity in precautionary measures.
• Legal stability and prevention of violations.
• Protection of public order and individual rights.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 22694/2023 represents a significant step forward in understanding the role of the public prosecutor in matters of personal precautionary measures. The Court of Cassation has reiterated that the interest in appealing is not limited only to cases where the precautionary measure is contested in its entirety, but also extends to cases where certain offenses are excluded from the assessment of strong evidence. This approach not only strengthens the guarantor function of the public prosecutor but also ensures greater coherence in the Italian legal system.