Receiving a notice after a demonstration can generate an immediate question: is it a criminal offense, an administrative penalty or both? The words used in the document, such as dispersal order, dissolution order or refusal to move away, are not enough on their own to provide an answer. What matters are the cited provision, the date of the facts and the conduct personally attributed to the recipient of the report or judicial document.
I want to help you separate what concerns the non-compliance with the dissolution order from any different accusations, such as violence, threat or property damage. We will see what steps Article 24 of the consolidated text of public safety laws requires, why the perception of the order and the concrete possibility of moving away are important, and how to read a notice without confusing participation in a demonstration with automatic liability.
The allegation does not depend solely on presence at the demonstration
Being present in a square or a procession does not in itself prove a refusal to obey. The charge must refer to individual conduct: remaining after a dissolution order, at a specific time and place. A generic formula referring to participants as a whole does not replace the need to link the fact to the single identified person.
The dispersal order has a more precise technical meaning than an invitation to go away. In common parlance, people often speak of dispersal; Article 24 TULPS instead uses the expression order to dissolve the meeting or gathering. The distinction is useful because the provision links that order to a specific sequence, not to any instruction given by law enforcement during a crowded event.
Freedom of assembly does not render legitimately issued orders irrelevant. Peacefully participating in a demonstration is not, for that reason alone, a violation. On the other hand, if the conditions provided by law for dissolution are met and the order is addressed in a recognizable way to those present, subsequent conduct may become relevant. The defense must therefore avoid two opposite errors: treating participation as a fault or assuming that the context of the demonstration excludes any individual obligation.
When Article 24 TULPS allows dissolution
The dissolution order comes after the intimations provided by law. Article 24 of the consolidated text of public safety laws contemplates the case in which three intimations to dissolve the meeting or gathering have remained without effect. The same provision also considers the hypothesis in which such intimations cannot be given due to revolt or opposition. It is therefore not correct to mechanically apply only one of the two situations without understanding which one was actually alleged.
The three intimations are the ordinary rule, not a formal detail to be ignored. If the document maintains that the intimations were carried out, it must be possible to reconstruct at least their content, their timing and the area to which they were addressed. If instead the impossibility of formulating them due to revolt or opposition is invoked, the alleged fact must explain why the authority believes that very different precondition was met.
The provision concerns a meeting or gathering in a public place. The location of the event, the possibility of access for the public and the concrete modalities of the gathering help to understand whether the fact falls within the discipline of public meetings. This qualification does not serve to label any group of people: it serves to identify the applicable rule and not to overlap a demonstration, an occasional gathering and other different situations.
The 2026 reform modified the consequence of the refusal to obey. In the text resulting from Decree-Law No. 23 of February 24, 2026, converted by Law No. 54 of April 24, 2026, persons who refuse to obey the dissolution order provided for by Article 24 TULPS are subject to a pecuniary administrative penalty ranging from 2,000 to 20,000 euros, without payment in a reduced amount. The useful reference is the coordinated text of Decree-Law No. 23 of 2026, which reports the amendment to Article 24.
What facts can exclude or weaken the charge
The perception of the order must be concrete
An order must be recognizable by the person accused of failing to comply with it. Distance, noise, the person's position, the direction of the crowd, the use of loudspeakers and the presence of obstacles can affect the possibility of hearing and understanding the intimation. It is not enough to state in an abstract way that an announcement was broadcast in an area of the demonstration if it does not emerge how that message reached the point where the identified person was located.
Not hearing the order does not automatically cancel the allegation. However, it can be a central element when images, the layout of the places or the sequence of events show that the notice was not perceptible or was not clearly attributable to that part of the gathering. The point is not a generic declaration of estrangement: it is the concrete link between the issued order and its recipient.
Remaining must be voluntary and attributed to the right person
Staying on site does not always equate to refusing to move away. A person may find themselves blocked by the crowd, barriers, vehicles, a closed gate or difficulty reaching an exit. The case of someone who, after having perceived the order and being able to leave the area, intentionally remains in the affected zone is different. The temporal sequence is therefore decisive: first the recognizable order, then a concrete possibility to execute it, and finally the attributed behavior.
Individual identification requires attention. In a crowded context, a video can document that an order was given or that some people remained in the square. To support the allegation against a specific subject, however, it must make it possible to reliably link that person to the relevant behavior. Clothing, proximity to a group or presence in a street are descriptive data; they do not replace the ascertainment of personal conduct.
The reconstruction of the event can change with a few elements
The exact point of the order matters as much as its content. Two people present at the same demonstration can find themselves in very different situations: one is in front of the vehicle from which the intimation is broadcast and has a free exit; the other is in a side street, far from the announcement and squeezed in the outflow. The allegation cannot transform these different conditions into indistinguishable liability simply because both people appear in the footage of the event.
Photos and videos must be read in their entirety. A short clip can offer an incomplete impression if it does not show what happens immediately before or after: the direction of the outflow, the opening of gates, the presence of barriers or the moment when the order is announced. Personal materials can also be useful if the original file is preserved and if it can be correctly placed in the chronology of the facts.
Administrative penalty and criminal charges are different levels
Non-compliance with the dissolution order does not alone constitute a criminal offense today. For the case regulated by the current Article 24 TULPS, the envisaged consequence is administrative and consists of the pecuniary penalty indicated by the provision. This clarification is also important for those seeking criminal defense in Milan: it is necessary first of all to understand whether the received document alleges only that violation or whether it contains an additional allegation of a criminal nature.
A criminal proceeding requires further and autonomous facts. If the document mentions violence, threat, injury, property damage or other specific behaviors, such facts are not presumed from mere presence after the dissolution order. Each hypothesis has its own elements to be ascertained. An administrative allegation connected to Article 24 and a criminal accusation born in the same context must therefore be kept distinct, even when they concern the same demonstration.
The qualification of the document guides the response. An administrative report, an invitation to appear, a notice of investigation or a document coming from the judicial authority do not produce the same effect and do not necessarily follow the same path. Reading only the title of the document can lead to overlooking the cited provision, the authority that issued it and the indications on remedies or deadlines.
How to orient yourself after receiving a report or notification
The first check concerns the provision indicated in the document. The cited article makes it possible to understand whether the allegation concerns the dissolution order provided for by Article 24 TULPS, the violation of prescriptions relating to the meeting or a completely different fact. Conversion Law No. 54 of 2026 entered into force on April 25, 2026; the relative conversion act published in the Official Journal makes it possible to precisely identify the regulatory framework of the reform.
The date of the facts is not a secondary detail. The applicable discipline must be referred to the moment of the alleged conduct, not only to the date on which the notification arrives. For facts placed in the period of the 2026 reform, it is necessary to distinguish the text of the decree-law, its conversion and the content of the received document. It is not prudent to automatically transfer a subsequent formulation to a prior event without checking its starting date.
An essential chronology helps to identify the point actually under discussion. Useful items can include the time of the order, the exact place where you were, the direction in which the crowd was moving, available accesses, the possible presence of obstacles and the moment of identification. Generic reconstructions of the entire demonstration are not useful if the charge concerns a few minutes and a precise area.
The instructions contained in the document should not be overlooked. The notification may indicate payment methods, defenses, the competent authority or remedies against a potential subsequent measure. Deadlines are not identical for every document and it is not correct to derive them solely from the name of the violation. If you have received an allegation, you can contact me in Milan bringing the complete notification and the materials that allow the sequence of facts to be reconstructed.
Errors to avoid in the defense
Denying everything indiscriminately can conceal the truly useful point. In some cases it is undisputed that the dissolution order was issued, but its perceptibility, the affected area or the concrete possibility of moving away remain uncertain. In other cases the core issue is the identification of the person. An effective response must focus on what the allegation must prove, rather than on overly generic statements.
Paying or contesting are choices that should not be confused. The current Article 24 TULPS excludes payment in a reduced amount for the refusal to obey the dissolution order. This does not mean that all documents connected to a demonstration follow the same rule, nor that paying a sum is always an available step in the same forms. Before taking initiatives, it is necessary to distinguish the violation indicated in the document from other possible charges.
One must not overlap collective responsibility and personal liability. A demonstration can be described as agitated, large or conflictual; these characteristics do not dispense with ascertaining what a person actually did, heard and was able to do. The conduct of the group can be the context, but it does not replace the proof of individual behavior required by the provision.
Frequently asked questions
Can I be accused of a criminal offense just because I did not disperse?
No, not automatically. The current Article 24 TULPS provides a pecuniary administrative penalty for the refusal to obey the dissolution order. A potential criminal accusation requires further and distinct facts, indicated in the document and verified according to the elements proper to that different crime.
Do law enforcement officers always have to issue three intimations?
The three intimations are the sequence provided in the ordinary course. However, Article 24 TULPS also considers the case in which they cannot be carried out due to revolt or opposition. To understand whether the allegation is well-founded, one must therefore identify which of the two hypotheses the document invokes and what facts it is based on.
If I did not hear the order, is the report null and void?
No, but the perceptibility of the order can be decisive. Distance, noise, position, obstacles, repetition of warnings and the area actually reached by the announcement help establish whether the person could understand that the dissolution order concerned them as well.
Is appearing in a video after the dissolution order sufficient?
Mere presence in the footage is not enough. It is necessary to be able to identify the person, place them in the moment following the order and understand what behavior they maintained. The video may also show favorable elements, such as an obstructed gate, a slow outflow or an attempt to exit.
Can I pay the penalty in a reduced amount?
For the offense provided by the current Article 24 TULPS, no. The provision excludes payment in a reduced amount for the refusal to obey the dissolution order. However, this rule must not be automatically extended to different violations potentially indicated in the same demonstration context.
Useful regulatory references
The central reference is Article 24 TULPS in the text amended in 2026. You can consult the coordinated text of Decree-Law No. 23 of 2026 and Law No. 54 of April 24, 2026, of conversion. These sources help distinguish the administrative penalty provided for non-compliance with the dissolution order from any further allegations.