Commentary on Judgment No. 46801 of 2024: Expulsion and Supervised Freedom in Criminal Law

Judgment No. 46801 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important food for thought regarding security measures applied to convicted persons, particularly concerning expulsion from the State territory and supervised freedom. This decision is part of an ever-evolving legal context, where the balance between public safety and individual rights becomes increasingly complex.

Context of the Judgment

The judgment in question deals with the appeal against a measure by the supervisory judge that ordered the expulsion of a convicted person. The Court deemed the ex officio substitution of this measure with supervised freedom admissible, should the former be considered excessively burdensome. This aspect is crucial because it reflects an "in bonam partem" assessment approach regarding the social dangerousness of the individual, respecting the principles of adequacy and proportionality of security measures.

Expulsion from the State territory - Appeal against the supervisory judge's measure imposing the measure - Ex officio substitution with supervised freedom - Admissibility - Criteria. In matters of security measures, the supervisory court, called upon to decide on the appeal filed against the supervisory judge's measure ordering the expulsion of the convicted person from the State territory, may ex officio substitute the original measure, if deemed excessively burdensome, with supervised freedom, carrying out an "in bonam partem" assessment of the individual's social dangerousness, in compliance with the canons of adequacy and proportionality of personal security measures.

Analysis of Legal Principles

The decision of the Court of Cassation is based on various legal references, including Articles 228 and 235 of the Criminal Code, and Article 27 of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of humanity of punishments. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of measures that respect human dignity, and the judgment under review fits perfectly within this framework.

Furthermore, the criteria of adequacy and proportionality are fundamental in modern criminal law. These principles ensure that the measures adopted do not exceed the gravity of the committed crime and that they effectively respond to the needs of the convicted person's social reintegration. Supervised freedom, in this context, presents itself as a less afflicting measure, allowing for greater integration of the individual into society.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 46801 of 2024 represents a significant step towards a more humanitarian and proportionate conception of security measures in criminal law. It demonstrates how the Italian legal system is capable of adapting to the demands of social justice while ensuring the safety of citizens. It is essential that legal professionals and citizens themselves are aware of these dynamics, in order to promote a balanced approach between security and fundamental rights.