Precautionary measures play a crucial role in legal proceedings, ensuring fair and just outcomes. Dive into our selection of articles to learn more about this important aspect of the legal system.
The Supreme Court, with Judgment No. 19390/2025, defines the limits of the Enforcement Judge in recognizing the binding nature of the continuation, excluding the consideration of precautionary measures following irrevocable judgments. An in-depth analysis to understand the implications of this important decision.
An important ruling by the Court of Cassation reaffirms the suspect's fundamental right to participate in the hearing for the review of precautionary measures. Find out why the failure to provide notice constitutes an absolute, irremediable nullity, which is recognizable at any stage of the proceedings, ensuring full protection of the citizen against restrictive measures.
The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Judgment no. 18593/2025, clarifies the importance of the suspect's interest in appealing against the qualification of organizer of a mafia association, outlining the implications for precautionary measures and the need for precise verification. A fundamental analysis for understanding defense rights in criminal law.
The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 20166/2025, clarifies the limits on the admissibility of evidence obtained beyond the deadlines of the preliminary investigations for the imposition of precautionary measures, delineating a boundary between investigative effectiveness and respect for procedural guarantees.
The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 14834/2025, declares the question of constitutional legitimacy on art. 309, paragraph 9-bis, c.p.p. unfounded, limiting the right to request the adjournment of the review hearing solely to the suspect. Let's see what changes for lawyers and clients in the delicate balance between defense and protection of personal liberty.
The Cassation Court's ruling 13175/2025 clarifies when, in the legitimacy proceedings for compensation for unjust detention, the losing party must be ordered to pay costs, including those incurred ex officio. A practical analysis for lawyers, scholars, and individuals involved in precautionary measures.
The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 17916 of 2025, clarifies the serious consequences of omitting the preliminary interrogation in personal precautionary measures, affirming the nullity of the order and limiting the supplementary powers of the Review Court, in protection of defence guarantees.
Commentary on the decision of the Court of Cassation which annulled without referral an order of the Court of Review of Palermo: focus on nullity "intermediate regime", articles 178 and 309 c.p.p., and the role of the public prosecutor in the precautionary phase.
The Court of Cassation, with ruling 18753/2025, clarifies a crucial aspect regarding personal precautionary measures: the appeal against a ruling adjusting the precautionary regime must be made through an appeal pursuant to art. 310 c.p.p., excluding review. An in-depth analysis of the practical implications for the defense and the protection of the injured party, highlighting the sensitivity of these decisions in the context of criminal proceedings.
The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 12151/2025, clarifies when the garnishee interrogation becomes a "favorable" element to be transmitted to the Review Court for the possible annulment of the precautionary measure. Let's delve into the regulatory framework, practical impacts, and defensive indications.