 | SENTENZA N. 31456 UD.21/05/2008 - DEPOSITO DEL 29/07/2008 | |
joint sections: determining the penalty to be enforced, custody for another crime and unjust detention. Supreme Court Judgement No. UD 31416. 10/07/2008 - 25/07/2008 DEPOSIT
Print Close
OPERATION - IMPRISONMENT - PRE-TRIAL AND OTHER CRIMES - COMPENSATION FOR UNJUST IMPRISONMENT - STATEMENT UNDER ART. CPP 657
Sections united stated che, nella determinazione della pena detentiva da eseguire, occorre computare il periodo di custodia cautelare subìto per altro reato, anche nel caso in cui, per detto periodo, il condannato abbia ottenuto l’equa riparazione per ingiusta detenzione.
Testo Completo:
Sentenza n. 31416 del 10 luglio 2008 - depositata il 25 luglio 2008
(Sezioni Unite Penali, Presidente F. Morelli, Relatore G. Ferrua
Vicenda processuale.
Con ordinanza 18-1-07 la Corte di appello di Palermo quale giudice dell’esecuzione, in accoglimento dell’istanza di Cascio Rosario disponeva che, nel determinare per il predetto la pena detentiva da espiare in virtù della sentenza conviction for the crime under Article. 416 bis cp issued by that Court on 8-7-05 (01/18/2007 irrevocable), we compute the pre-trial detention he suffered sine titulo 8-10-95 to 30.6.1996 in Case No. . 434/94 RGNR the Court of Sciacca; purpose noted that the benefit of fungibility, as provided by art. Cpp 657, was applicable even though the offender for the same period sought and obtained (by order 4/18/2000) repair the unjust detention: what in the art. 314 c. 4 Code of Criminal Procedure did not preclude such an eventuality and the state could pursue legal action for unjust enrichment.
against the measure proposed appeal the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal, alleging misapplication of Article. 314, 657 and cpp primarily on the assumption that the provisions of art. 314 c. 4 cpp dell'alternatività principle is obtained between the institution of redress for wrongful imprisonment and that the fungibility of the sentence, so it is possible that a person can achieve both benefits, noted that while the prospect of action to recover the sum at the time bestowed has no bearing, because of the lack of Advocacy estimates of how to enable the State and the possibility of supervening insolvency on the part of him that he had received.
Il ricorso veniva assegnato alla 1° sezione penale ed il collegio, evidenziato che sulla questione prospettata sussiste contrasto giurisprudenziale, rimetteva gli atti alle Sezioni Unite.
Con memoria depositata il 16-6-07 il Cascio precisava che il presupposto per ottenere la fungibilità si era concretato circa 8 anni dopo la di lui domanda avanzata ex artt. 314, 315 c.p.p. e che la sentenza di condanna, alla cui pena si riferiva l’operata detrazione, era stata pronunciata e divenuta irrevocabile successivamente alla decisione avente ad oggetto la liquidazione della riparazione in suo favore.
Motivi della decisione.
Il quesito sottoposto all’esame di queste Sezioni Unite è dunque il follows: if in the determination of punishment should be performed computed in accordance with art. Cpp 657 the period of custody for another offense immediately, even if the offender has obtained for the same period, fair compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
this respect were outlined in the case of two fundamental legitimacy of the Guidelines, opposing each other. Some previous
in negative answer to the question, noted: that the terms of Article. 314 c. 4 cpp (whereby the right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment is excluded for that part of the pre-trial detention has been computed for determining della pena) si deduce l’ulteriore speculare principio secondo cui chi ha ottenuto la riparazione non può più beneficiare della fungibilità con riguardo ad un identico periodo di carcerazione senza titolo; che i due istituti sono alternativi, essendo quindi rimessa all’interessato la facoltà di scegliere quello di cui avvalersi; che occorre evitare un’ingiustificata disparità di trattamento fra chi, avendo ottenuto la fungibilità non potrebbe conseguire la riparazione e chi, invece, avendo ottenuto quest’ultima, avrebbe diritto anche alla fungibilità (Cass. 10-5-99 n. 3488 Rv. 214644; Cass. 16-1-04 n. 18966 Rv. 227968; Cass. 11-2-04 n. 10366 Rv. 227229).
In termini difformi è stato other hand, said that paragraph 4 of Art. 314 Code of Criminal Procedure provides the only case in which the subject has taken advantage of the fungibility and not one in which he has "chosen" the only repairs for which the first benefit of the other must be considered exclusionary, in support of that solution has not shown that is appropriate to speak of true freedom of choice in the hands of the person because the two institutions are ontologically different, as the fungibility of the organ entrusted with the powers of office while executing the request for redress is left entirely to the will of the private and finally it was stressed that whenever possible fungibility being realized after the deadline laid down by Article. 315 c. Cpp it relates in a case of "forced waiver" to either of the benefits and conversely that the difference in treatment, described by that address the contrary, it is surmountable with the remedy of judicial action exercisable by the state for unjust enrichment (Cass. 11/23/2004 n. 358 Rv. 230 723).
An intermediate solution is finally adopted at a more recent decision which, in the face of repair achieved, limits the possibility of deducting the period of detention without suffering under the assumption that, when the question was to promote 'application referred to in art. 314 Code of Criminal Procedure, was not yet applicable fungibility, however, if the subject, "although both options activated, has asked for their choice and awarded the repair, was denied that the same can rely on the operation of the other institution ( Cass. Rv 5/12/2007 No 47001. 238489).
These sections consider United to join the approach taken by the sentence no 358 of 2004 which recognizes, in general, without identifying limitations, the applicability of the benefit of fungibility, even if the offender has obtained redress for the unjust detention: to share all the reasons forming the basis of that decision are held also the following considerations in the interpretation of Articles. Cpp 657 and 314 and the connection between the two standards.
Article. 657 Code of Criminal Procedure, in terms of performance, discipline, the calculation of the pre-trial detention and punishment expiated without reason and in particular states that "the prosecutor in determining the penalty to be enforced calculates the period of detention suffered for the same or for another offense ", the latter wording leaves no room for doubt: the prosecutor, noted a period of deprivation of liberty under custody must make the deduction, the only limit being represented by the fact that the measure was sustained after the commission the offense for which the penalty is determined to run.
the task in question is therefore essential and the same rule should be considered in repair.
highlighted in the optical art to be read. 314 c. 4 Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that "the right to compensation is excluded for that part of the custody to be counted for determining the size of a penalty" and said it was significant that the reference is to be understood as if it said "for that part to be counted "(Cass. 20/11/2001 No 13322, not the maximum point) and it is this provision is to confirm the inevitability of the above and the absence di ogni discrezionalità nella applicazione della fungibilità: i due istituti non sono dunque alternativi e non può con riguardo ai medesimi parlarsi di scelta, essendo destinato a prevalere quello contemplato dall’art. 657 c.p.p.
Il contesto normativo, così interpretato, ha una ben precisa ratio la quale consiste nel privilegiare in via diretta il bene primario nonchè indisponibile della liberà, rendendo legittimo un determinato periodo di detenzione, che originariamente non lo era, così escludendo che l’interessato debba scontare la pena detentiva per un ulteriore pari lasso temporale. La fungibilità, costituendo una reintegrazione in forma specifica, ha invero una ben maggior valenza rispetto ad una repair of a patrimonial nature, which "monetizing the sacrifice of an inviolable freedom constitutes a pale remedy" (literally: Constitutional Court Judgement No. 219/2008).
In fact, the choice-in-chief, at that person referred to in the case that you deactivate it should be denied in one respect, both the conceptual and systematic: first, it is inconceivable that the above is empowered to substitute its freedom with material goods and on the other hand, he can not divest itself of an institution which is applicable to tax prosecutor, to add after this that the demand for repairs is subject to a limitation period (Art. 315 para 1 CCP) and that may occur, as in this case, that the conditions do not exist for fungibility at the time when those who have suffered the unjust detention is entitled to seek reparation.
Neither can be argued that the subject, calling for the repair would remove the duty of the prosecutor to make the deduction: such a rule is not called art. 657 cpp and it is not obtainable from the opposite principle of Article. 314 c. 4 Code of Criminal Procedure because the operational of a particular institution may not enter a limit drawn from the discipline of another, different and not homogeneous.
is therefore no doubt that the person who has been practicing the repair quickly is demand at a time in which lacked the assumption of fungibility (ie a penalty of imprisonment to be executed), is entitled to deduct under Article. 657 c. Cpp occur after 2 as a final sentence to a term of not less than that of pre-trial detention suffered, but that right must be recognized even if the repair has been invoked and granted, although it can of the deduction: This is because, as outlined above, would not be made a configurable option or waiver by the offender, but an unlawful initial failure of the prosecutor.
Certainly the economic relief occurred after the deduction results in an unjust enrichment of the beneficiary against the State and therefore it will have the right to exercise the appropriate action that is residual and not excluded by the existence of a cause of acquisition, which the judge's ruling of the repair (see Cass. Civ. 9.2-87 1334 No Rv. 450809; Cass. Civ. No 30/07/1999 8311 Rv. 529145; Cass. civ 11/08/2005 No 21647 Rv. 586 072); remedies pursuant to art. 2041 cc according to the rules of civil law, does not indicate the failure to include specific procedures for the event in question is the unexpected insolvency of the defendant always conceivable pathological factor in the outcome of any judicial experience.
to prevent such situations must be considered that the repair, in the case where it appears that the petitioner was convicted by a final sentence to a term not exceeding that of the painful custody, may suspend the proceedings until that is defined within which that decision was taken. Neither objection is true that under the current code of ritual "the criminal court resolves all issues to which the decision" (Article 2 cpp), and that only questions relating to family status or citizenship may lead to a suspension of proceedings (Article 3 Code of Criminal Procedure), such provisions relate to the criminal process as it sought to determining whether the crime and its commission by the accused: they are therefore not applicable to the repair process of the unjust imprisonment which the court has no power comparable to that typical of the court nor the execution of cognition (see: Cass. ON 13/12/1995 n. 42 Rv. 203638; Cass. No 04/13/2000 2391 Rv. 217,691), is revealed instead practicable by analogy, is not expected to ban the ritual chamber, a suspension absolutely necessary art. 477 Code of Criminal Procedure, provided that the terms of duration as provided therein are merely officers (on that last point: Cass. 17-2-97 n. 2233 Rv. 207353; Cass. 26-9-07 n. 39784 Rv. 238436).
D’altro canto la procedura de qua, pur svolgendosi dinnanzi al giudice penale, assume connotazioni proprie, anche di carattere civilistico, avendo essa ad oggetto un rapporto patrimoniale tra l’istante ed l’amministrazione del Tesoro, dovendosi altresì considerare che l’intervento del pubblico ministero nella medesima ha natura identica a quella di cui all’art. 70 c.p.p. (Cass. 13-11-07 n. 46777 Rv. 238363): pertanto potrebbe addivenirsi ad una sospensione anche alla luce della normativa processuale civilistica ai sensi dell’art. 337 c.p.c., onde evitare pronunce che vengano a trovarsi in rapporto di conflittualità dal punto of view of their practical effects.
In this regard it should be noted that both remedies mentioned (the effort to remove the economic damage to the state and the suspension of proceedings for recovery) were listed as practicable in the two rulings by the Constitutional Court (Case 348/92 order and 191/02) which made express reference to the Court of Cassation who had specifically provided for (Cass. 04/03/1991 No 1553 Rv. 187 237).
In conclusion it must be stated the following principle of law: the prosecutor in determining the penalty that a person must atone is required to compute in accordance with art. Cpp 657 the period of custody that has been condemned for another offense, even if the same over this period has received fair compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
This calls accordingly dismissed.
PQM
The Court rejects the appeal.
Rome, 10/07/2008.
The "security package" From altalex.com Security package: the decree published in the Official text of Decree-Law May 23, 2008, No 92
Text of Decree-Law May 23, 2008, No 92 (in the Official Gazette - General Series - No. 122 of May 26, 2008), coordinated with the conversion law July 24 2008, n. 125 (in questa stessa Gazzetta Ufficiale alla pag. 6), recante: «Misure urgenti in materia di sicurezza pubblica».
(GU n. 173 del 25-7-2008)
Avvertenza:
- Il testo coordinato qui pubblicato e' stato redatto dal Ministero della giustizia ai sensi dell'art. 11, comma 1, del testo unico delle disposizioni sulla promulgazione delle leggi, sull'emanazione dei decreti del Presidente della Repubblica e sulle pubblicazioni ufficiali della Repubblica italiana, approvato con decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 28 dicembre 1985, n. 1092, nonche' dall'art. 10, commi 2 e 3, del medesimo testo unico, al sono fine di facilitare la lettura sia delle disposizioni del decreto-legge, integrate con le modifiche apportate dalla legge di conversione, che di quelle modificate o richiamate nel decreto, trascritte nelle note.
Restano invariati il valore e l'efficacia degli atti legislativi qui riportati.
Le modifiche apportate dalla legge di conversione sono stampate con caratteri corsivi.
Tali modifiche sono riportate in video tra i segni (( ... )).
A norma dell'art. 15, comma 5, della legge 23 agosto 1988, n. 400 (Disciplina dell'attivita' di Governo e ordinamento della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri), le modifiche apportate dalla legge di conversione hanno efficacia dal giorno successivo a quello della sua pubblicazione.
Art. 1.
Amendments to the Criminal Code
1. Are to the Penal Code be amended as follows:
a) Article 235 and 'replaced by the following:
' Art 235 (expulsion or removal of the foreign state). - The court orders the expulsion of foreigners or the expulsion of a citizen of the State belonging to an EU Member State, as well as in the cases expressly provided for by law, when the alien ((or the citizen belonging to a State Member of the European Union)) is sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding two years.
((Subject to the provisions on enforcement of security personal expulsion and the expulsion of the State are executed by the quaestor accordance with the procedures' referred to respectively in Article 13, paragraph 4, of the consolidated text referred to Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286, and Article 20, paragraph 11 of Legislative Decree 6 February 2007, No 30. )) The offender
of the deportation or expulsion pronounced by the court and 'punished with imprisonment from one to four years. ((In this case and 'mandatory arrest of the author of the act, even beyond the cases of flagrante delicto, and proceeds to rite very direct way;))
b) Article 312 and' replaced by the following:
'Art 312 (expulsion or removal of foreign state). - The court orders the expulsion of foreigners or the expulsion of a citizen of the State belonging to an EU Member State, as well as in the cases expressly provided for by law, when the alien ((or the citizen belonging to a State State)) of the European Union and condemned to a deprivation of liberty 'staff for any of the crimes predicted by this title. ((Subject to the provisions on enforcement of security personal, deportation and expulsion from the territory of the state are made by the quaestor accordance with the procedures' referred to respectively in Article 13, paragraph 4, of the text Act of the Legislative Decree 25 luglio 1998, n. 286, e all'articolo 20, comma 11, del decreto legislativo 6 febbraio 2007, n. 30.». ))
Il trasgressore dell'ordine di espulsione od allontanamento pronunciato dal giudice e' punito con la reclusione da uno a quattro anni. (( In tal caso e' obbligatorio l'arresto dell'autore del fatto, anche fuori dei casi di flagranza, e si procede con rito direttissimo»;
«b-bis) all'articolo 416-bis, sono apportate le seguenti modificazioni:
1) al primo comma, le parole: «da cinque a dieci anni» sono sostituite dalle seguenti: «da sette a dodici anni»;
2) al secondo comma, le parole: «da sette a dodici anni» sono sostituite dalle seguenti: «da nove a quattordici anni»;
3) al quarto comma, le parole: «da sette» sono sostituite dalle seguenti: «da nove» e le parole: «da dieci» sono sostituite dalle seguenti: «da dodici».
4) all'ottavo comma, dopo le parole: «comunque localmente denominate,» sono inserite le seguenti: «anche straniere,»;
5) la rubrica e' sostituita dalla seguente: «Associazioni di tipo mafioso anche straniere».
b-ter) l'articolo 495 e' sostituito dal seguente:
«Art. 495 (Falsa attestazione o dichiarazione a un pubblico ufficiale sulla identita' o su qualita' personali proprie o than others). - Any false declaration or statement to the officer's identity ', status or other qualities' of their own or another's person,' punished with imprisonment from one to six years.
The term of imprisonment and 'less than two years:
1) whether the statements in acts of civil status;
2) if the false statement about his identity' on their status or their own quality 'personal and 'made to the Authority' court by an accused or a person under investigation, or whether, as a result of a false statement in a criminal prosecution decision is entered under a false name;
b-c) after Article 495-bis and 'quote the following:
'Art 495-b (Fraudulent alterations to prevent the identification or verification of quality 'personal). -
Whoever, in order to prevent their identification of others or, alter parts of their own or another's body needed to make a finding of identity 'or other qualities' personal and' punished with imprisonment from one to six years. The fact
'aggravated if committed in the exercise of a health profession;
b-d) Article 496 and' replaced by the following:
'Art 496 (False statements on the identity 'or what' personal self or others). - Anyone outside of the cases mentioned in previous articles, When asked about identity ', status or other quality' of their own or another's person makes false statements to a public official or person in charge of a public service, exercising the functions or services, and 'punished with imprisonment from one to five years. "
'b-e) Article 576, first paragraph, and' The following issue:
"5-a) against an officer or judicial police officer or an officer or agent of public security, in the or because the performance of the functions or services "." ))
c) Article 589 shall be amended as follows:
1) the second paragraph, the word 'five' and 'replaced by: (("seven";))
2) after the second paragraph, and' included the following:
"apply the penalty of imprisonment from three to ten years if the act 'committed with breach of discipline on the road by:
1) subject to the influence of alcohol pursuant to Article 186, paragraph 2, letter c) of Legislative Decree 30 April 1992, No 285, as amended;
2) person under the influence of drugs or psychotropic substances. '
3) the third paragraph, the words "twelve years" are replaced by the following: "fifteen years";
((c-bis) Article 157, sixth paragraph, the words "589, second and third paragraph," shall be replaced by "589, second, third and fourth paragraphs. ))
d) in the third paragraph of Article 590, and 'added the following sentence:
' In cases of violation of traffic regulations, if the act 'committed by persons in the influence of alcohol under 'Article 186, paragraph 2, letter c) of Legislative Decree 30 April 1992, No 285, as amended, or by persons under the influence of drugs or psychotropic substances, the penalty for serious injury 'imprisonment from six months to two years and the penalty for serious injury and' imprisonment for one year and six months to four years'
e) after Article 590 and 'included the following:
' Art 590-a (Computation of the circumstances). - When the condition occurs in art. 589, third paragraph, that of Article 590, ((third paragraph, last sentence)) competitors mitigating circumstances other than those provided for in Articles 98 and 114, can not be considered equivalent or prevalent than the latter and decreases are working on as many 'penalty determined under those aggravating circumstances.'
f) Article 61, first paragraph, after the number 11 and '((added)) the following:
' 11 - ca. ((Having the culprit committed the crime while he is)) illegally in the country. ":
'f-a' ((Article 62-bis, after the second paragraph, and 'added the following:
" In any case, the 'lack of previous convictions for other offenses against the convicted can not be, for this' alone as a basis for granting of the circumstances referred to in the first paragraph.. "))
Article 2.
Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure shall be amended as follows:
(("0a) Article 51:
1) in paragraph 3-b, after the words: 'In the cases provided for in paragraph 3-bis" are inserted the following: "and in paragraphs 3-c and 3-d ';
2) in paragraph 3-c, the second period and' deleted
Ob) Article 328:
1) in paragraph 1 - a. the words "paragraph 3-bis" are replaced by "paragraphs 3-bis and 3-c;
2) and paragraph 1-ter 'deleted;
3) and' added at the end, the following paragraph:
1-c. In the case of proceedings for the crimes listed in Article 51, paragraph 3-d, the functions of judge for preliminary investigations and serve as a judge for the preliminary hearing shall be exercised, subject to specific provisions of the law, a magistrate court in the capital of district in which the seat of the competent court '. ')
a) Article 260 after paragraph 3 add the following:
"3-bis. The authorities 'court shall also,' even upon request of the established, in the destruction of the goods which are still prohibited the manufacture, possession, possession or sale when they are difficult to custody, or if the case is particularly expensive or dangerous to health, safety or public hygiene or when, although the outcome of investigations made under Article 360, it becomes apparent violation of these prohibitions. The authorities 'court has the removal of one or more' samples with the observance of formalities' in Article 364 and orders the destruction of the residual market.
3-ter. In cases of seizure proceedings against persons unknown, the police, after a period of three months from the date of execution of the seizure, may 'proceed with the destruction of seized counterfeit goods, after notification to the' court. The destruction can 'be saved after 15 days of notification otherwise decided by the' court. E 'without prejudice to the right' to preservation of samples to be used for law enforcement purposes. '
((' a-bis) in the heading of article 260 shall be added the following words: ". Destruction of property seized". " ))
b) al comma 1 dell'articolo 371-bis, dopo le parole:
«nell'articolo 51, comma 3-bis» sono inserire le seguenti: «e in relazione ai procedimenti di prevenzione (( antimafia»; ))
(( b-bis) all'articolo 381, comma 2, sono aggiunte, in fine, le seguenti lettere:
"m-ter) falsa attestazione o dichiarazione a un pubblico ufficiale sulla identita' o su qualita' personali proprie o di altri, prevista dall'articolo 495 del codice penale;
m-quater) fraudolente alterazioni per impedire l'identificazione o l'accertamento di qualita' personali, previste dall'articolo 495-ter del codice penale»; ))
c) paragraph 4 of Article 449 and 'replaced by the following:
"4. The prosecutor, when the arrest in flagrante delicto and 'already' been validated, proceed to an expedited basis by presenting the accused at the hearing no later than ((thirtieth)) days after arrest, unless this' seriously prejudice the investigation. " ;
d) in paragraph 5 of Article 449 of the first period and 'replaced by the following: "The public prosecutor shall also be expedited basis, unless this' seriously prejudice the investigation, against a person who, during the' interrogation confession made.. " ((In the same paragraph 5 of Article 449 of the second period, the word "fifteenth" and 'shall be substituted:
' thirtieth '))
e) in paragraph 1 of Article 450, the words: "If you think to make an expedited basis" shall be substituted the following:
"When you carry out expedited basis, '
f) in paragraph 1 of Article 453, the words, "the prosecutor can' request ', are replaced ((the following))' except that this' seriously prejudice the investigation, the prosecutor Calls for '
g) Article 453 shall be inserted after paragraph 1 the following:
' 1-bis. The prosecution requests the court immediately, even outside the terms of Article 454, paragraph 1, and no later than one hundred eighty days of the execution of the measure, for the offense in relation to which the person under investigation is in custody, unless the request seriously jeopardize the investigation.
1-c. The request referred to in paragraph 1-bis and 'made after the definition of the procedure under Article 309 or after the expiry of the deadline for the commencement of the review request.'
h) Article 455, after paragraph 1 and ', the following:
' 1-bis. In the cases referred to in Article 453, paragraph 1-bis, the court rejects the request if the order provides that custody and 'been revoked or canceled for lack supervening serious indications of guilt. '
i) Article 599, items 4 and 5 are repealed;
l) in Article 602, paragraph 2 and' deleted;
m) in Article 656, paragraph 9, letter a), after the words "the Law of 26 July 1975 No 354, as amended, "shall be inserted the following: (('and' referred to in Articles 423-bis, 624, when there are two or more 'between those circumstances specified in Article 625, 624-bis of the Penal Code, and for the crimes which marks the aggravating circumstance under Article 61, first paragraph, number 11-bis) of the Code.))
((Article 2-bis.
Changes to the rules of implementation, of coordination and transitional provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referred to Legislative Decree 28 July 1989, No 271.
1. Article 132-bis of the rules for implementation, coordination and transitional provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referred to Legislative Decree 28 July 1989, No 271, and 'replaced by the following:
' Art 132-a (training and discussion of the roles of the hearing process). - 1. In the formation of the roles of audience and dealing with processes and 'give priority' absolute
a) the processes related to the crimes referred to in Article 407, paragraph 2, letter a) of the Code and the crime of crimes' organized, including terrorism;
b) the processes that relate to crimes committed in violation of the rules on injury prevention and healthy working conditions and standards relating to road traffic, to the crimes referred to in the consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and the status of the stranger, referred to Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286, as well as' crimes punishable by imprisonment of not less than four years;
c) the trials of defendants detained, even for a crime other than that for which it proceeds;
d) processes in which the accused and 'been subjected to arrest or detention of a suspect in the crime, or to personal protective measures, including the effectiveness of which is revoked or terminated;
e) ai processi nei quali e' contestata la recidiva, ai sensi dell'articolo 99, quarto comma, del codice penale;
f) ai processi da celebrare con giudizio direttissimo e con giudizio immediato.
2. I dirigenti degli uffici giudicanti adottano i provvedimenti organizzativi necessari per assicurare la rapida definizione dei processi per i quali e' prevista la trattazione prioritaria.». ))
(( Art. 2-ter.
Misure per assicurare la rapida definizione dei processi relativi a reati per i quali e' prevista la trattazione prioritaria
1. Al fine di assicurare la rapida definizione dei processi pendenti alla data di entrata in vigore della legge di conversione del presente decreto, for which e 'planned discussion of priority, the measures taken pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 132-bis of the rules for implementation, coordination and transitional provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referred to Legislative Decree 28 July 1989, No 271, as amended by Article 2-a of this decree, the directors of the offices can identify the criteria and methods 'to refer to processes of dealing with crimes committed until May 2, 2006 in respect of which the conditions for' indult application, under the law July 31, 2006, No 241, and the penalty may be imposed can 'be contained within the limits laid down in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the said Act No. 241, 2006.
investigating criteria for referral under this paragraph, the directors of the offices held, also, 'account of gravity' and the concrete offensiveness 'of the offense, the injury that can' come from behind to train and test to ascertain the facts , as well as' the interest of the victim.
2. Postponing the discussion of the process can not 'be longer than eighteen months and the period of statute of limitations is suspended for the duration of the court.
3. The court can not 'be provided if the accused or that he opposes' already' declared the hearing closed.
4. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be communicated to the Council of the Judiciary. The Higher Judicial Council and the Minister of Justice shall assess the effects of the measures taken by the managers of office organization and operation of services relating to justice, as well as' priority on the treatment and the length of trials. In place of communications on the administration of justice, pursuant to Article 86 of the judiciary, of the Royal Decree of 30 January 1941, No 12, as amended, the Minister of Justice refers to the Chambers assessments made under this paragraph.
5. The plaintiff may set up 'to transfer the civil action. In this case, the words to appear in Article 163-bis of the Code of Procedure civil, are abbreviated to the goal 'and the court sets out the order in dealing with cases giving priority to the process moved on action.
not apply the provisions of Article 75, paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. During the first-instance trials relating to crimes in respect of which, if convicted, must apply the law of 31 July 2006, No 241, the accused or his defense lawyer with special power of attorney and the prosecutor, if they feel that the punishment may be contained within the limits laid down in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Law No 241, 2006, in the first hearing after the date of entry into force of the law of conversion of this decree may formulare richiesta di applicazione della pena ai sensi degli articoli 444 e seguenti del codice di procedura penale, anche se risulti decorso il termine previsto dall'articolo 446, comma 1, del medesimo codice di procedura penale.
7. La richiesta di cui al comma 6 puo' essere formulata anche quando sia gia' stata in precedenza presentata altra richiesta di applicazione della pena, ma vi sia stato il dissenso da parte del pubblico ministero ovvero la stessa sia stata rigettata dal giudice, sempre che la nuova richiesta non costituisca mera riproposizione della precedente. ))
Art. 3.
Modifiche al decreto legislativo 28 agosto 2000, n. 274
1. All'articolo 4, comma 1, lettera a), del decreto legislativo August 28, 2000, No 274, after the words "may give rise to illness for more than twenty days" shall be inserted the following: ', as well as' to the exclusion of the cases referred to in Article 590, third paragraph, where it is in fact committed by persons in state influence of alcohol pursuant to Article 186, paragraph 2, letter c) of Legislative Decree 30 April 1992, No 285, as amended, or by persons under the influence of drugs or psychotropic. "
Article 4.
Amendments to Legislative Decree 30 April 1992, No 285 and subsequent amendments
((01. The table attached to Article 126-bis of Legislative Decree April 30, 1992, No. 285, and subsequent changes the heading 'art. 187 "the words" paragraphs 7 and 8 'are replaced by the following: "Sections 1 and 8'))
1. Article 186 of Legislative Decree 30 April 1992, No 285, as amended, shall be amended as follows:
a) in paragraph 2, letter b), the words "imprisonment for up to three months'
are replaced by" imprisonment for up to six months ';
b) in paragraph 2, letter c), the words "imprisonment for up to six months'
are replaced by the following:" the arrest of three months to a year "and added, Finally, the following periods: "With conviction or application of the penalty at the request of the parties, even if it 'was applied to the suspended sentence, and' always the confiscation of the vehicle and by which 'the crime was committed under Article 240 ((second paragraph the criminal code,)) unless the vehicle belongs to a person unrelated to the crime. The vehicle subject to seizure may 'be in the charge to the offender, ((unless it appears that has previously committed other violations of the provision referred to in this letter. The procedure described in the two previous periods also applies in the case referred to paragraph 2-bis. '
' b-bis) paragraph 2-bis and 'replaced by the following:
"2-bis. If the conducente in stato di ebbrezza provoca un incidente stradale, le pene di cui al comma 2 sono raddoppiate e, fatto salvo quanto previsto dalla lettera c) del medesimo comma 2, e' disposto il fermo amministrativo del veicolo per novanta giorni ai sensi del Capo I, sezione II, del titolo VI, salvo che il veicolo appartenga a persona estranea al reato. E' fatta salva in ogni caso l'applicazione delle sanzioni accessorie previste dagli articoli 222 e 223»; ))
c) dopo il comma 2-quater e' inserito il seguente:
«2-quinquies. Salvo che non sia disposto il sequestro ai sensi del comma 2, il veicolo, qualora non possa essere guidato da altra persona idonea, puo' essere fatto trasportare fino al luogo indicato dall'interessato or until more 'left-over garage and close to the owner or operator of it with the normal guarantees for safekeeping. The costs for the recovery and transport are paid by the offender. '
d) in paragraph 7, the first and second period are replaced by the following:
' Unless the act constitutes a more 'serious offense, case of rejection of the certification referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 or 5, the driver and 'punished with the penalties referred to in paragraph 2, letter c);
((e) in paragraph 7, the third term and' replaced as follows: "The sentence for the crime of which involves the period before the sanction of suspension of driving license for a period from six months to two years and confiscation of the vehicle in the same way 'and procedures laid down in paragraph 2, letter c), unless the vehicle belongs to a person unrelated to the breach ";))
f) in paragraph 7 of the fifth sentence, the words: "When the same subject does more 'violations during a two-year period," are replaced by the following: "If the offense is' committed by individuals who are already' sentenced in the two previous years for the same offense."
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 187 of Legislative Decree 30 April 1992, No 285, shall be amended as follows:
a) the words: 'and' punished by a fine of € 1000 to € 4,000 and imprisonment for up to three months' are replaced by the following: 'and' punished by a fine of € 1,500 to € 6,000 and the arrest of three months to one year;
b) at the end and 'added the following sentence: "The provisions of 'Article 186, paragraph 2, letter c), fifth and sixth period, as well as' those referred to in paragraph 2-d of the same Article 186.. "
((2-bis. Article 187, paragraph 1-bis of Legislative Decree April 30, 1992, No. 285, as amended, the words "and e 'ordered the vehicle impounded for ninety days to under Chapter I, Section II, Title VI "shall be substituted the following:" and the provisions of the last sentence of paragraph 1,. ))
3. Article 189 of Legislative Decree 30 April 1992, No 285, as amended, are amended as follows:
a) in paragraph 6, the words "three months to three years" shall be replaced by "six months to three years'
b) paragraph 7, the words "six months to three years" are replaced by the following: "from one year to three years."
4. Article 222, paragraph 2 ((Legislative Decree April 30, 1992, No. 285)) and 'added at the end the following sentence: "If the offense in the third period and' committed by persons in state influence of alcohol within the meaning of Article 186, paragraph 2, c) or from the subject under the influence of drugs or psychotropic substances, the court shall apply the sanction of revocation of license.. "
Article 5.
Changes ((referred to in the text only)) Decree 25 July 1998, No 286
((01. Article 12, paragraph 5 of the consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and the status of aliens, referred to Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No. 286, and 'added- Finally, the following sentence: "When the facts and 'committed in the competition by two or more' people, or about the permanence of five or more 'persons, punishment and' increased by a third to half '.))
1. Article 12 of the consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and the status of aliens, referred to Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286, as amended, after paragraph 5 and 'included the following:
(("5-bis. Unless the act constitutes a more' serious crime, anyone who, for consideration, in order to reap undue profit from 'accommodation to a foreigner without a residence permit in a building which has availability ', which assigns the same, even rent, and' punished with imprisonment from six months to three years.)) condemns the decision irrevocable (( or the application of penalty at the request of the parties pursuant to Rule 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if it 'was granted probation,)) involves the seizure of the property, unless it belongs to a person unrelated to the crime. We observe, as applicable, the existing provisions relating to the management and allocation of the goods confiscated. The sums of money derived from the sale, if ordered, goods are confiscated for the expansion of activity 'of preventing and combating crimes regarding illegal immigration.. "
((a-bis) to Article 13, paragraph 3, fifth period, the consolidated text referred to Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No. 286, the word:
'fifteen' and 'replaced by the following: cult. "
1-c. Article 22, paragraph 12 of the consolidated text referred to Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286, the words "with the arrest of three months to a year and a fine of 5000 € per person employed" shall be replaced by "with imprisonment from six months to three years and a fine of 5000 € per person employed. ))
Article 6.
text amended Act of the Legislative Decree 18 August 2000, No 267, regarding the attribution of the mayor in the functions of state jurisdiction
1. Article 54 of the consolidated laws on local government, referred to Legislative Decree 18 August 2000, No 267, and 'replaced by the following:
«Art. 54 (Attribuzioni del sindaco nelle funzioni di competenza statale). - 1. Il sindaco, quale ufficiale del Governo, sovrintende:
a) all'emanazione degli atti che gli sono attribuiti dalla legge e dai regolamenti in materia di ordine e sicurezza pubblica;
b) allo svolgimento delle funzioni affidategli dalla legge in materia di pubblica sicurezza e di polizia giudiziaria;
c) alla vigilanza su tutto quanto possa interessare la sicurezza e l'ordine pubblico, informandone (( preventivamente )) il prefetto.
2. Il sindaco, nell'esercizio delle funzioni di cui al comma 1, concorre ad assicurare anche la cooperazione della polizia locale con le Forze di polizia statali, nell'ambito delle direttive di coordinamento impartite dal Ministro dell'interno-Autorita' nazionale di pubblica sicurezza.
3. Il sindaco, quale ufficiale del Governo, sovrintende, altresi', alla tenuta dei registri di stato civile e di popolazione e agli adempimenti demandatigli dalle leggi in materia elettorale, di leva militare e di statistica.
4. Il sindaco, quale ufficiale del Governo, (( adotta con atto motivato provvedimenti, anche contingibili e urgenti nel rispetto dei principi generali dell'ordinamento, )) al fine di prevenire e di eliminare gravi pericoli che minacciano l'incolumita' pubblica e la sicurezza urbana. I provvedimenti di cui al presente comma sono (( preventivamente )) comunicati al prefetto anche ai drawing up of the instruments deemed necessary for their implementation.
((4-bis. By decree of the Minister of the Interior and 'governed the scope of the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 4 with reference to the definitions relating to safety' public and urban security.))
5. If the measures ((adopted by the auditors in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 4 lead)) on the ordinate consequences of people living near or adjacent municipalities, the chief index to a special conference which brings together the mayors concerned, the president of the province and, where appropriate, public and private entities interested in the territorial intervention.
(( 5-bis. Il Sindaco segnala alle competenti autorita', giudiziaria o di pubblica sicurezza, la condizione irregolare dello straniero o del cittadino appartenente ad uno Stato membro dell'Unione europea, per la eventuale adozione di provvedimenti di espulsione o di allontanamento dal territorio dello Stato. ))
6. In casi di emergenza, connessi con il traffico o con l'inquinamento atmosferico o acustico, ovvero quando a causa di circostanze straordinarie si verifichino particolari necessita' dell'utenza o per motivi di sicurezza urbana, il sindaco puo' modificare gli orari degli esercizi commerciali, dei pubblici esercizi e dei servizi pubblici, nonche', d'intesa con i responsabili territorialmente competenti delle amministrazioni interessate, gli orari di apertura al pubblico degli uffici pubblici localizzati nel territorio, adottando i provvedimenti di cui al comma 4.
7. Se l'ordinanza adottata ai sensi del comma 4 e' rivolta a persone determinate e queste non ottemperano all'ordine impartito, il sindaco puo' provvedere d'ufficio a spese degli interessati, senza pregiudizio dell'azione penale per i reati in cui siano incorsi.
8. Chi sostituisce il sindaco esercita anche le funzioni di cui al presente articolo.
9. Nell'ambito delle funzioni di cui al presente articolo, il prefetto puo' disporre ispezioni per accertare il regolare svolgimento dei compiti affidati, nonche' per l'acquisizione di dati e notizie interessanti other general services.
10. In matters referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3, as well as 'Article 14, the mayor, upon notice to the prefect, can' delegate the exercise of the functions therein to the Chairman of the District, where there are bodies consisting of municipal decentralization, The mayor can 'delegate the task to a city councilman for the performance of districts and villages.
11. In the cases referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4, in the event of inaction by the mayor or his delegate, in exercising the functions specified in paragraph 10, the prefect may 'intervene with its own measure.
12. The Minister can 'adopt measures to address the exercise of functions under this Article by the Mayor.
((Article 6-bis.
Amendments to Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Law of 24 November 1981, n. 689
1. The second paragraph of Article 16 of Law 24 November 1981, n. 689 , and 'replaced by the following:
"For violations of regulations and municipal and provincial ordinances, the City Council or provincial level, within the limits prescribed by law the minimum and maximum penalty provided for, can' set a different payment amount in lesser extent, notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph.))
Section 7.
((Collaboration in provincial and municipal police plans for coordinated control of the territory))
((1. The plans for coordinated control of the territory referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 17 of Law March 26, 2001, No. 128, which can happen even to the specific needs of municipalities different from those of major urban centers, determine the relationship of mutual cooperation among the contingent of police personnel and provincial and municipal organs of State Police.
2. A decree to be taken within three months from the date of entry into force of conversion law of this decree, the Minister of Interior, in consultation with the Minister of Justice, the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Minister of Defense, shall determine the procedures be observed to ensure, during the course of these coordinated plans of territorial control, the formalities' of operational link between the municipal police, provincial police and the police state. " ))
((Article 7-bis.
Competition of the armed forces in control of the territory
1. For specific and unique needs of crime prevention ', where appropriate an increased control of the territory, can' be approved a plan for the use of a contingent of military personnel of the armed forces, preferably used in police or military duties, however, volunteers of the armed forces specially trained for the tasks they perform. This staff, 'at the disposal of the prefect of the province including metropolitan areas and densely populated areas, however, under Article 13 of Law of 1 April 1981, No 121, for security services to sites and sensitive targets, as well as' patrol and patrol in competition and in conjunction with the police. The plan may 'be authorized for a period of six months, renewable once, for a quota of no more than 3,000 units'.
2. The plan using the staff of the Armed Forces referred to in paragraph 1 and 'adopted by the Minister of the Interior, in consultation with the Defence Minister, after consulting the National Committee of order and public safety integrated by the Chief of Staff defense, and having informed the President of the Council of Ministers. The Minister in this regard relates to the competent parliamentary commissions.
3. In performing the services referred to in paragraph l, the staff of the armed forces not belonging to the Carabinieri Corps acts as agent of the public safety and can 'make the identification and immediate on-site searches of persons and vehicles in accordance with Article 4 of Law May 22, 1975, No 152, also in order to prevent or inhibit behavior that may endanger the safety 'of people or places of safety supervision, with the exception of the functions of judicial police. For the purposes of identification, to complete assessments and to undertake all acts of the police, armed forces personnel accompanying the persons mentioned in the more 'nearby offices or commands of the State Police or Carabinieri. Against persons accompanied the provisions of Article 349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The costs of implementing the decree referred to in paragraph 2, within the established spending limit of € 31.2 million for each of the years 2008 and 2009, including expenses for the transfer and use of personnel and vehicles and the payment of compensation for overtime and compensation 'all-encompassing as determined by Article 20 of Law March 26, 2001, No 128, and not longer than the remuneration provided for attachment to police forces, identified by the Minister of Economy and Finance, in consultation with the Ministers of Interior and Defence, for by a corresponding reduction of the allocation of special fund current account registered for the purposes of the 2008-2010 budget, under the "Special Reserve Fund" mission "to spread Funds' state budget of the Ministry of Economy and Finance for the year 2008, the making partial use: the 4 million euro for 2008 and EUR 16 million for the year 2009, the provision for the Ministry of Economy and Finance, as € 9 million for the year 2008 and € 8 million for the year 2009, the provision for the Ministry of Justice as to € 18.2 million for the year 2008 and € 7.2 million for the year 2009, the provision for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
5. The Minister of Economy and Finance and 'allowed to introduce, by decree, the necessary changes to the budget. "))
Article 8.
municipal police access to data processing center of the Ministry of the Interior
1. Article 16-quater of Law Decree 18 January 1993, No 8, with amendments, into law March 19, 1993, No 68 shall be amended as follows:
((a) in paragraph 1 the words "register of stolen vehicles operating" until the end of the paragraph are replaced by the following:
"stolen vehicle register and the register of documents of identity 'stolen or lost working at the Data Processing Centre referred to in Article 8 of that Act No. 121. The staff of the municipal police in possession of a public safety officer can 'ALSO' access to information on permits issued and renewed, in relation As provided by Article 54, paragraph 5 bis of the Consolidated Act of the Legislative Decree 18 August 2000, No. 267, as amended;
b) after paragraph 1 e' inserito il seguente:
«1-bis. Il personale di cui al comma 1 addetto ai servizi di polizia stradale ed in possesso della qualifica di agente di pubblica sicurezza puo' essere, altresi', abilitato all'inserimento, presso il Centro elaborazione dati ivi indicato, dei dati relativi ai veicoli rubati e ai documenti rubati o smarriti, di cui al comma 1, acquisiti autonomamente.».
1-bis. I collegamenti, anche a mezzo della rete informativa telematica dell'Associazione nazionale dei comuni italiani (ANCI), per l'accesso allo schedario dei documenti d'identita' rubati o smarriti, nonche' alle informazioni concernenti i permessi di soggiorno di cui al comma 1, sono effettuati con le modalita' stabilite con Decree of the Minister of Interior, in consultation with the Minister of Economy and Finance, in consultation with the ANCI. ))
((Article 8-bis.
access officers and police officers belonging to the judicial body of the Harbour to the Data Processing Centre of the Ministry of the Interior
1. The officers and agents of the criminal police Corps of the Harbour, for purposes' of port security and maritime transport, can access data and information of the data processing center in the first paragraph of Article 9 of Law of 1 April 1981, No. 121, Notwithstanding the provisions of the same article, limited to those related to the functions attributed to own officers and agents of the judicial police. Such personnel can 'be also', enabled the insertion in the same center of the corresponding data acquired independently.
2. By decree of the Minister of Interior, in consultation with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, identifying the data and information referred to in paragraph 1 and shall establish the mode 'to make the connections for access to it.
3. Within six months from the date of entry into force of the law of conversion of this decree shall be made the necessary changes to regulations under Article 11, first paragraph of the Law of 1 April 1981, No 121 of the Decree of President of the Republic on May 3 1982, no 378. ))
Article 9.
Centers identification and expulsion
1. The words "detention center" or "detention center and service" are replaced, in general, all provisions of law or regulations, the following:
'center for identification and expulsion "as a new name the same structures.
Article 10.
((Changes to the Law of 31 May 1965, No. 575
1. The law of 31 May 1965 No 575 be amended as follows:
a) Article 1, are added at the end, the following words:
'and' to persons suspected of an offense referred to in Article 51, paragraph 3-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure ";
b) Article 2 and 'replaced by the following:
' Art 2. - 1. In respect of the persons referred to in Article 1 may be proposed by the national anti-Mafia prosecutor, the public prosecutor at the court of the district town house where the person on the quaestor or the Director of the Anti-Mafia Investigation Department, and although there 'was the prior notice, prevention measures and public safety supervisory special obligation to stay in the municipality of residence or habitual residence, in the first and third paragraphs of Article 3 of Law 27 December 1956, n. 1423, e successive modificazioni.
2. Quando non vi e' stato il preventivo avviso e la persona risulti definitivamente condannata per un delitto non colposo, con la notificazione della proposta il questore puo' imporre all'interessato sottoposto alla misura della sorveglianza speciale il divieto di cui all'articolo 4, quarto comma, della legge 27 dicembre 1956, n. 1423.
Si applicano le disposizioni dei commi quarto, ultimo periodo, e quinto del medesimo articolo 4.
3. Nelle udienze relative ai procedimenti per l'applicazione delle misure di prevenzione richieste ai sensi della presente legge, le funzioni di pubblico ministero sono esercitate dal procuratore della Repubblica di cui al comma 1»;
c) all'articolo 2-bis:
1) al comma 1, dopo le parole: «Il procuratore della Repubblica» sono inserite le seguenti: «, il direttore della Direzione investigativa antimafia»;
2) dopo il comma 6 e' aggiunto il seguente:
«6-bis. Le misure di prevenzione personali e patrimoniali possono essere richieste e applicate disgiuntamente. Le misure patrimoniali possono essere disposte anche in caso di morte del soggetto proposto per la loro applicazione. Nel caso la morte sopraggiunga nel corso del procedimento esso prosegue nei confronti degli eredi o comunque degli aventi causa»;
d) all'articolo 2-ter:
«1) al secondo comma, dopo le parole: "A richiesta del procuratore della Repubblica," sono inserite le seguenti: "del direttore della Direzione investigativa antimafia,";
2) il primo periodo del terzo comma e' sostituito dal seguente:
"Con l'applicazione della misura di prevenzione il tribunale dispone la confisca dei beni sequestrati di cui la persona, nei cui confronti e' instaurato il procedimento, non possa giustificare la legittima provenienza e di cui, anche per interposta persona fisica o giuridica, risulti essere titolare o avere la disponibilita' a qualsiasi titolo in valore sproporzionato al proprio reddito, dichiarato ai fini delle imposte sul reddito, o alla propria attivita' economica, nonche' dei beni che risultino essere frutto di attivita' illecite o ne costituiscano il reimpiego";
3) al sesto e al settimo comma, dopo le parole: "del procuratore della Repubblica," sono inserite le seguenti: "del direttore della Direzione investigativa antimafia,";
4) sono aggiunti in fine i seguenti commi:
"Se la persona nei cui confronti e' proposta la misura di prevenzione disperde, distrae, occulta o svaluta i beni al fine di eludere l'esecuzione dei provvedimenti di sequestro o di confisca su di essi, il sequestro e la confisca hanno ad oggetto denaro o altri beni di valore equivalente. Analogamente si procede quando i beni non possano essere confiscati in quanto trasferiti legittimamente, prima dell'esecuzione del sequestro, a terzi in buona fede.
La confisca puo' essere proposta, in caso di morte del soggetto nei confronti del quale potrebbe essere disposta, nei riguardi dei successori a titolo universale o particolare, entro il termine di cinque anni dal decesso.
Quando risulti che beni confiscati con provvedimento definitivo dopo l'assegnazione o la destinazione siano rientrati, anche per interposta persona, nella disponibilita' o sotto il controllo del soggetto sottoposto al provvedimento di confisca, si puo' disporre la revoca dell'assegnazione o della destinazione da parte dello stesso organo che ha disposto il relativo provvedimento.
Quando accerta che taluni beni sono stati fittiziamente intestati o trasferiti a terzi, con la sentenza which provides for the forfeiture the court shall declare the nullity 'of its disposals.
For the purposes of the preceding paragraph shall be presumed until proven otherwise fictitious:
a) transfers and headings, even for consideration, during the two years prior to the proposal in respect of the prevention measure of the Ascendant, the descendant of the spouse or permanent partner of the person, as well as' relatives within the sixth degree and related within the fourth degree;
b) transfers and headers, free of charge or trustee, during the two years prior to the proposal the measure of prevention ";
e) Article 3-bis seventh paragraph after the words: "At the request of the Prosecutor of the Republic" by inserting ", the director of the Anti-Mafia Investigation";
f) Article 3-c, paragraphs 1 and 5, after the words "the Public Prosecutor" contains the following: "at the court of the district capital, the director of the Anti-Mafia Investigation Department"
g) Article 10-c, the second paragraph after the words "at the request of the Prosecutor of the Republic" are inserted the following: ", the director of the Anti-Mafia Investigation "».))
((Article 10-bis.
Changes to Decree-Law 8 June 1992, n. 306, converted, with amendments, Law of 7 August 1992, no 356
1. Article 12-sexies of Decree Law of 8 June 1992, No 306, ratified with amendments by Law of 7 August 1992, no 356, after paragraph 2-bis shall be inserted the following:
'2-b. In the case referred to in paragraph 2, when it is not 'possible to confiscate dellla pursuant to the provisions referred to therein, the court shall order the confiscation of money, goods and other utility' of which the offender has the availability ', even for intermediary, for an amount equivalent to the product, price or profit of the offense.
2-c. The provisions of paragraph 2-bis shall also apply in the case of condemnation and punishment upon the application required under Article 444 del codice di procedura penale per taluno dei delitti previsti dagli articoli 629, 630 e 648, esclusa la fattispecie di cui al secondo comma, 648-bis e 648-ter del codice penale, nonche' dall'articolo 12-quinquies del presente decreto e dagli articoli 73, esclusa la fattispecie di cui al comma 5, e 74 del testo unico delle leggi in materia di disciplina degli stupefacenti e sostanze psicotrope, prevenzione, cura e riabilitazione dei relativi stati di tossicodipendenza, di cui al decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 9 ottobre 1990, n. 309.». ))
Art. 11.
(( Modifiche alla legge 22 maggio 1975, n. 152
1. Alla legge 22 maggio 1975, n. 152, sono apportate le seguenti modificazioni:
a) Article 18, fourth paragraph, the words ", in derogation from Article 14 of Law March 19, 1990, No 55 "shall be deleted
b) Article 19, first paragraph shall be added at the end, the following periods:" In the cases provided for in this paragraph, the functions and powers are entitled, under the law May 31, 1965 No 575, the Public Prosecutor at the court of the district capital are attributed to the Public Prosecutor at the court in whose district the person home.
In hearings on proceedings for the application of preventive measures referred to in this paragraph, the duties of public prosecutor may also be carried out by the Prosecutor Prosecutor of the court. " ))
((Article 11-bis.
Changes to the law 3 August 1988, No. 327
1. Article 15 of Law August 3, 1988, No. 327, after paragraph 3 and 'added following:
"When and 3-bis 'was applied to a measure of personal prevention against the persons referred to in Article 1 of Law May 31, 1965, No. 575, rehabilitation may' be required after five years of the cessation of measure of personal prevention. Rehabilitation brings with it, 'the termination of the prohibition in Article 10 of Law May 31, 1965, No. 575. "))
((Article 11-ter.
Repeal
1. Article 14 of Law March 19, 1990, No 55, and 'repealed. ))
Article 12.
Changes to the Royal Decree of 30 January 1941, No 12
1. After Article 110-bis of Royal Decree of 30 January 1941, No 12, and 'included the following:
(("Article 110-b (Application of magistrates in the field of prevention measures). - 1. The national anti-Mafia prosecutor can' have, within the powers granted in Article 371-bis of the Criminal Procedure Code and consulted the relevant District Attorney, the temporary attachment of judges of the National Anti-Mafia prosecutors in the district for the handling of individual cases to prevent sheet.)) Si applica, in quanto compatibile, l'articolo 110-bis.
2. Se ne fa richiesta il procuratore distrettuale, il Procuratore generale presso la corte d'appello puo', per giustificati motivi, disporre che le funzioni di pubblico ministero per la trattazione delle misure di prevenzione siano esercitate da un magistrato designato dal Procuratore della Repubblica presso il giudice competente.».
(( Art. 12-bis.
Modifiche alla legge 18 marzo 2008, n. 48
1. All'articolo 11 della legge 18 marzo 2008, n. 48, dopo il comma 1 e' aggiunto il seguente:
«1-bis. Le disposizioni di cui al comma 3-quinquies dell'articolo 51 del codice di procedura penale, introdotto dal comma 1 del this Article shall apply only to proceedings entered in the register under Article 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the date of entry into force of this Act. "))
((Article 12-ter.
Changes single text of the decree of the President of the Republic May 30, 2002, No. 115
1. The single text of the laws and regulations on legal fees, by Decree of the President of the Republic May 30, 2002, No 115, shall be amended as follows:
a) Article 76, paragraph 4 and after ', the following:
' 4-bis. For those already 'definitively convicted for the crimes of which Articles 416-bis of the Penal Code, 291-quater of the consolidated text of the decree of the President January 23, 1973, No 43, 73, only aggravated the situation under Articles 80 and 74, paragraph 1 of the consolidated text of the decree of the President of the Republic October 9, 1990, No
309, as well as 'for the crimes committed using the conditions laid down by the said Article 416-bis, or to facilitate the activities' of the associations set out in that Article, solely for the purpose of this Ordinance, the income is expected to exceed the limits provided;
b) Article 93, paragraph 2 and 'deleted;
c) Article 96, paragraph 1, the words "or immediately, and if the same 'presented at the hearing on pain of nullity' absolute under Article 179, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "
are deleted
d) Article 96, paragraph 2, after the words "light" shall be inserted the following: "the findings of the criminal ,».))
((Article 12-c.
Amendments to Article 25 of the provisions of Presidential Decree Republic September 22, 1988, n. 448.
1. Article 25 of the provisions on criminal proceedings against juvenile offenders, by Decree of the President September 22, 1988, No. 448, after paragraph 2-bis and 'added the following:
'2-b. The prosecutor can not 'proceed to an expedited basis, or require the immediate feedback in cases where it' a serious threat to the educational needs of the child.. " ))
Article 13.
Entry into force 1. This Decree shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic and will be 'presented to both Houses for the conversion into law.
DRUGS - GROWING \u0026lt;\u0026lt;HOME>> intended for personal use - NO FEES - NO - harmless' OF CONDUCT - CONCEPT | by www.cortedicassazione.it
| | | | | SENTENZA N. 28605 UD. 24/04/2008 - DEPOSITO DEL 10/07/2008 | |
mandatory arrest and unfair detention of non-EU citizen: The Constitutional Court rejected the issues raised. Look Online - Decisions BROWSE ONLINE
JUDGEMENT NO 236
YEAR 2008
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
composed of:
- President Franco BILE
- Giovanni Maria FLICK Judge
- Francesco AMIRANTE "
- Ugo De Siervo "
- Paul MADDALENA "
- Alfio Finocchiaro"
- Alfonso FORTY "
- France Gall"
- Luigi Mazzella "
- Gaetano SILVESTRI"
- Sabino Cassese "
- Tesauro"
- Paolo Maria NAPOLITANO "
gives the following Judgement
in reviews of the constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraphs 5 and 5-d-ter of Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286 (Consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and the status of the foreigner) - as replaced by art. 1 of Law November 12, 2004, No 271 (Conversion into law, with amendments, decree-law on September 14 2004, No. 241, entitled "Urgent provisions on immigration) - promoted by orders of April 10, 2006 the Court of Agrigento, detached section of Canicattì of 6 May and 5 September 2006 the Court of Agrigento, Licata sub-office of 13 July (Nos. 2 orders) 2007 by the Court of Paola, detached section of Scalea, registered as Nos. respectively. Register of Orders 413 and 578 of 2006 and nn. 540, 781 and 783 of the Register of Orders 2007, published in the Official Gazette nos. 42 and 51, first special series in 2006 and nn. 32 and 47, before special series 2007.
viewed the intervention by the President of the Council of Ministers;
heard in chambers on May 21, 2008 the Judge Rapporteur Gaetano Silvestri.
The facts
1 .- With three orders of similar content, the Court of Agrigento, a sub-office Canicattì (ron 413 of 2006) and Licata (ron 578 of 2006 and No. 540 of 2007), raised , in reference to Arts. 3, 10, 13, 27 and 136 of the Constitution, issues of constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraphs 5 and 5-d-ter of Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286 (Consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and the status of the foreigner) - as replaced by art. 1 of Law November 12, 2004, No 271 (Conversion into law, with amendments, Decree-Law of 14 September 2004, No. 241, entitled "Urgent provisions on immigration) -, in so far as, respectively, constitute the criminal case of amounts detention of foreign nationals into the the State (paragraph 5-b) and stop required of the person responsible for this crime (paragraph 5-d).
The court, called upon to adjudicate on the validation of the arrest of third country nationals inottemperanti order to leave the country, issued by the quaestor under Article. 14, paragraph 5-bis of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, had provided the release of those arrested with reasons based on the lack of serious evidence of guilt as to the existence of the crime alleged, and later suspended the opinions of validation. The complaints relate to proposed
first prediction of the arrest of the alleged conflict with the mandatory principles enshrined in Articles. 27 and 13 of the Constitution According to the court, the legislature has required the application of "exceptional measure" of provisional restriction of freedom against persons who "is not [no] general material conditions in order to comply voluntarily of expulsion, lack of documents, financial resources and capacity to provide a regular means of transport to return home, and then compared with situations in which compliance with the order of removal may be irrecoverable.
Judges in quibus dwell on that aspect of the phenomenon, noting that in the absence of the transfer of non-EU citizens outside the territory of the State by the authority, and because "the practical impossibility on the part of foreigners to return useful alone in his country "can not" objectively claim that these spontaneously performs a measure affecting him. " The referring courts to add the additional consideration that the compliance order expulsion would expose the non-EU citizen to personal and legal consequences "even more important than those arising from his illegal stay in Italy," whenever the same, unable to reach the country of origin, is forced to enter in another Member with the risk "certainly unreasonable" to undergo further restrictions of freedom.
In only one case (order No. 540 of 2007) is also the antithesis of the proposed legislation criticized by art. 10 of the Constitution, for violation of obligations to protect victims of international trafficking in human beings.
censorship rules, according to the judges before the national court, also would be elusive to the delivery of Corte costituzionale con la quale è stata dichiarata l’illegittimità costituzionale del previgente art. 14, comma 5-quinquies, del d.lgs. n. 286 del 1998, che stabiliva «identico congegno normativo». Al solo fine di ripristinare l’arresto obbligatorio, infatti, il legislatore avrebbe «surrettiziamente» trasformato la precedente fattispecie contravvenzionale in una previsione delittuosa, il cui rigore sanzionatorio non troverebbe giustificazione nel bilanciamento tra interesse protetto e inviolabilità della libertà personale.
I rimettenti segnalano quindi il contrasto della normativa censurata con il principio di uguaglianza, rilevando come tale normativa realizzi «una indebita e arbitraria disparità treatment of the offending conduct and other acts for which, however, despite their more serious objective, the arrest is made optional only on the basis of general principles laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure. "
With reference to the relevance of the questions, the judges before the national court will affirm the existence, as would follow from accepting the same beneficial effects in the hands of the suspects.
1.1. - By applications are identical in content, in all the reviews spoke the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the state, which has concluded the main finding of manifest inadmissibility of issues and, in the alternative, not substance. As for the preliminary
profile, the state representative highlighted the lack of motivation regarding the relevance of the questions, the referring courts established by the generic reference to "a beneficial effect that would result in chief suspect, from accepting the issues."
the substance, the Attorney General notes that the peculiar gravity of the conduct of that person who, expelled from the territory of the state, intentionally continued to reside there, to be a constant discipline on immigration, having been already provided for the mandatory arrest contravention to the original case brought the Law of 30 July 2002, 189 (Modification of the regulations on immigration and asylum).
With the news traveled by Law No 271, 2004, conversion of the decree-law No. 241, 2004, the legislature intervened to restructure the sanctions system, diversifying the possible nature and attributing criminal conduct offensive to the most serious.
The outcome of this restoration work are regulated differently in fact the possibility of illegal entry into the territory of the State (equated the failure to request a residence permit within the prescribed period in the absence of force majeure, and the cases of withdrawal or cancellation of the permit), and the ejection willing to expiration of the permit to stay for more than sixty days if no request for renewal. In the first case, ICTU oculi more severe, the legislature has given the more severe treatment, setting the penalty of imprisonment from one to four years, has confirmed for the second and less serious cases, the nature of contravention and the penalty of arrest from six months to a year.
think, therefore, the state representative that the choices made by the legislature in terms of dosimetry resulting penalty not exceeding the reasonable time.
Finally, as the 'written off' for compliance with the order of expulsion, proposed by the referring courts as a result of the difficulties that non-EU citizen would encounter in returning to the country of origin, the Attorney General merely states that the assumption is not understandable, and that in any case, "proves too much."
2. - With two ordinances are identical in content (order No. 781 and No. 783 of 2007) the Court of Paola, detached section of Scalea, raised, with reference to Arts. 3 and 13 of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraph 5-d, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, as amended by Law No. 271, 2004, to the extent it provides for the mandatory arrest, rather than merely optional, for the crime in art. 14, paragraph 5-ter of the Decree.
Both judgments concern the validation of the arrest of the main non-EU citizens inottemperanti order to leave the country, issued by the quaestor under Article. 14, paragraph 5-bis of the Consolidated Act on immigration. The court refers the parties concerned - the outcome of the investigation fingerprint - are now without a criminal record and court, and never reported to police.
The court, which suspended the reviews before deciding on validation, complaint, the anticipation of the arrest mandatory for the offense under Article. 14, paragraph 5-ter of Legislative Decree no. No 286 of 1998, highlighting the character in the introduction of twice exceptional cases where the deprivation of liberty is not only outside of the reservation of jurisdiction, but also precluding "any assessment as to whether or in the particular case to deprive ' individual of liberty. " In the matter of protection of personal freedom, in fact, art. 13 of the Constitution allows for the measure of arrest is required only "in exceptional cases of necessity and urgency, such would not be as pertaining to the criminal case in art. 14, paragraph 5-bis of the Consolidated Act on immigration.
The legislative choice of mandating the arrest in flagrante delicto in a case such as this, be punished with imprisonment from one to four years, and that is substantiated nell'inottemperanza to an order issued by the administrative authority, is without reason (they are called the Constitutional Court No 394 of 1994, No. 409, 1989, No. 103, 1982 and No. 26 of 1979), as shown by comparison with similar cases provided for under the light of the general criteria set out in Article . 380, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are positive in the specification limits configured by the Constitution for the adoption of exceptional detention order.
The arrest is in fact mandatory provisions of art. 380, paragraph 1, no. proc. pen. for crimes punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment of not less than twenty years and the smallest in five years, and, in paragraph 2 of that Article. 380, for offenses listed exhaustively, whose sentences are prescribed by law in all cases significantly higher, in total, as for the crime under Article. 14, paragraph 5-ter of Legislative Decree no. 286, 1998.
The unreasonableness of legislative choice, and the consequent unjustified unequal treatment would result from having its own legislature united, for the adoption of mandatory arrest so far, this case is not comparable having regard to the treatment of penalties, both in different social profile of the alarm raised. According to the court, in fact, non-compliance with the order of the superintendent of leaving the country does not produce any direct injury to constitutionally significant interest to the community (this is a "barrier crime") and, second, even it can be assumed that the non-EU citizen is socially dangerous because of their illegal status or because they illegally present in the country.
The court therefore introduces a further comparison of the crime in question and other cases which, he said, not only presentano struttura analoga al primo, ma anche risultano direttamente o potenzialmente lesive di interessi collettivi, e per le quali, invece, l’arresto in flagranza è soltanto facoltativo.
Il riferimento immediato è al reato di evasione, che si sostanzia nella violazione di un provvedimento emesso dall’autorità giudiziaria, e «non di un semplice provvedimento amministrativo», da parte di un soggetto il quale, per il solo fatto di essere detenuto per altra causa, deve presumersi socialmente pericoloso.
Il raffronto prosegue con il richiamo al reato previsto dall’art. 9, comma 2, della legge 27 dicembre 1956, n. 1423 (Misure di prevenzione), che punisce l’inosservanza agli obblighi e alle prescrizioni inerenti alla sorveglianza speciale con la reclusione da uno a cinque anni, e per il quale il comma 3 della stessa disposizione prevede l’arresto soltanto facoltativo. Anche in questa ipotesi, evidenzia il rimettente, come nel reato di evasione, l’inosservanza riguarda un provvedimento dell’autorità giudiziaria e l’agente è soggetto la cui elevata pericolosità sociale è stata già accertata.
Allo stesso modo, l’art. 8, comma 1-bis, della legge 13 dicembre 1989, n. 401 (Interventi nel settore del giuoco e delle scommesse clandestini e tutela della correttezza nello svolgimento delle manifestazioni sportive), prevede l’arresto facoltativo dei soggetti già have become responsible for acts of violence during sports events, and therefore certainly dangerous.
Finally, with regard to the treatment by the legislature to other cases of infringement or violation of regulations issued by the authority (administrative or judicial), the referring calls but not limited to the cases provided for in Articles. 388 and 650 of the Penal Code and Articles. 9, paragraph 1, of Law 1423, 1956 and 51 of Legislative Decree 5 February 1997, No 22 (Implementation of Directive 91/156/EEC on waste, Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste and 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste), to underline how, in these case, the arrest is not expected, even in an optional.
The discussion above make clear, in the opinion of the court, that the legislature has treated same way at all dissimilar situations, violating the principle of equality which, although literally referring to "citizens", shall be deemed extended to foreigners, the rules on the protection of fundamental human rights (it's called the Constitutional Court ruling No. 104 of 1969).
The alleged infringement of the principle enshrined in Article. 13, third paragraph of the Constitution, it is argued After summarizing the findings already carried out, that the legislature may establish temporary restrictions to libertà personale, al di fuori dell’intervento dell’autorità giudiziaria, solo «in casi eccezionali di necessità ed urgenza», laddove l’art. 14, comma 5-ter del d.lgs. n. 286 del 1998, che concerne la mancata osservanza dell’ordine di allontanamento disposto dal questore, configurerebbe un reato la cui struttura «non prevede né la lesione né la messa in pericolo diretta e immediata di un bene costituzionalmente protetto».
Secondo il rimettente, la ratio della previsione risiederebbe, infatti, «unicamente nella scelta del legislatore di assicurare, mediante la minaccia di sanzioni penali, l’ottemperanza ad un provvedimento amministrativo, e quindi di garantire l’effettività mechanisms of expulsion of aliens "undesirable". "
The court focuses more on the subjective profile of the absence of a specific dangerous condition of the agent, further highlighting how, in front of people never convicted or tried for other crimes, it is not possible to make an assessment of social dangerousness (I refer to the judgments of the Constitutional Court No 64 of 1977 and No 126 of 1972). The illegal stay of foreigners in Italy is not in itself a crime - instead of being subject to lawful expulsion - or the absence of a formal title legitimizing the entry into the territory of the State may be considered on its own specific hazard index of the subject. The referring
then examines the consequences of automatically censored by observing that in many cases, the police are forced to make the arrest of persons who do not present a profile of social danger, and are sometimes even included in the local context of reference. In these cases, the referring court observes, the adoption of the measure precautelare Apart from its usefulness (or not welcomed by the police at runtime, or by the court in the validation), found no justification in the objective gravity of the fact that in danger of the subject agent.
would be excluded, then, according to the court, any instrumentality of the mandatory arrest and the need to ensure compliance with a removal: the effect of deterrence, by which the legislature intends to ensure 'effectiveness of the procedure of expulsion, is entitled to be represented by the penalty imposed by the judicial outcome of a fair trial, not even a precautelare extent to which the Constitution and criminal law assign other functions (it's called the ruling of the Constitutional Court No. 223 of 2004).
on the significance of the question, the referring points to the greater extent of control on the police that the court is called upon to perform the validation in cases of arrest optional, as is constantly asserted by the Court of legitimacy, that the judicial review extends to the evaluation of substantive requirements of the measure restricting freedom (severity of the act, hazardous agent), in consideration of the facts known or knowable at the time of the incident.
Therefore, in case of acceptance of the question, would be returned to the court validated the possibility of reviewing the proposed measure precautelare in all respects on indicati e, in definitiva, di non convalidare l’arresto in ipotesi di carenza di detti presupposti.
Ancora a proposito della rilevanza della questione, il giudice a quo ribadisce l’autonomia del giudizio di convalida rispetto al successivo giudizio direttissimo (obbligatorio nei casi di specie), e richiama la sentenza della Corte costituzionale n. 54 del 1993, nella quale si è affermato che nel giudizio di convalida «la rilevanza della questione permane, trattandosi di stabilire se la liberazione dell’arrestato debba considerarsi conseguente all’applicazione dell’art. 391, settimo comma, ovvero più radicalmente, alla caducazione con effetto retroattivo della disposizione in base alla quale gli arresti were carried out. "
2.1. - In proceedings brought by the order of 2007 783 Ron spoke the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the state, which asked that the question be declared unfounded.
In the act of intervention, the state representative repeats arguments already raised in the proceedings regarding the level counterparts introduced by the orders made by the Court of Agrigento, already summarized in section 1.1.
legal considerations
1. - In three separate orders for similar content (order No. 413 and No. 578 of 2006, No. 540 of 2007), the Court of Agrigento, sub-offices Canicattì and Licata, raised, with reference to Arts. 3, 10, 13, 27 and 136 of the Constitution, issues of constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraphs 5 and 5-d-ter of Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286 (Consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and the status of foreigners), as replaced by art. 1 of Law November 12, 2004, No 271 (Conversion into law, with amendments, Decree-Law of 14 September 2004, No. 241, entitled "Urgent provisions on immigration), in which, respectively, constitute the criminal case of amounts detention of foreign nationals into the territory of State (paragraph 5-b) and stop required of the person responsible for this crime (paragraph 5-d).
The Court of Paola, detached section of Scalea, with the remaining orders, identical (ro numbers 781 and 783 of 2007), raised, with reference to Arts. 3:13 Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraph 5-d, of Legislative Decree no. 286, 1998, to the extent it provides for the mandatory arrest, rather than merely optional, for the crime under Article. 14, paragraph 5-b of the same Legislative Decree no. 286, 1998.
2. - The opinions can be gathered and decided by a single sentence for the partial coincidence of the object the individual issues and the parameters mentioned.
3. - Must be declared inadmissible preliminary questions of constitutionality raised by the ordinances ron 413 of 2006 of the Court of Agrigento, detached section of Canicattì, and orders numbers ro 578 of 2006 and 540 in 2007 the same Court of Agrigento, sub-office of Licata.
by the aforementioned introductory show that the referring courts have ordered the immediate release of those arrested for failure to act on the assumption of serious indications of guilt regarding the consummation of the crime alleged against them. Since the judges in the main proceedings have already ruled out the possibility to validate arrests performed, the outcome of these proceedings incidental to the constitutionality can not explain any effect in the main proceedings. It follows the manifest inadmissibility of the issues raised, for lack of relevance.
3.1. - The question of constitutionality raised by the ordinances ro numbers 781 and 783 of 2007 of the Court of Paola, detached section of Scalea, is unfounded.
3.2. - The legislative provision mandatory arrest in flagrante delicto obeys the legislature to limit the discretion of the police in all cases in which it argues is that there can not be postponed to the protection of community. The plant's current code of criminal procedure is governed, in the area in question, two criteria set out separately from the Law of 16 February 1987, n. 81 (legislative delegation to the Government of the Republic to issue a new Code of Criminal Procedure). The first quantitative and is based on the seriousness of the offense, as evidenced by penalties prescribed by law, the minimum and maximum provided for. The second qualitative in nature and is based on "special protection needs of the community."
the first criterion, we inform the art. 380, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the mandatory arrest in flagrante delicto for crime punishable by imprisonment for not less than the minimum five anni e nel massimo a venti anni. Al secondo criterio si informa il comma 2 dello stesso articolo, che contempla, accanto ai reati consumati, anche quelli tentati, per i quali, ai sensi dell’art. 56 del codice penale, la pena è diminuita da un terzo a due terzi. Tale diminuzione di pena porta il minimo e il massimo applicabile ai suddetti reati a valori molto vicini a quelli previsti dall’art. 14, comma 5-ter, del d.lgs. n. 286 del 1998.
3.3. − Dal dato sopra esposto si desume che rilevano, per questa seconda fascia di reati, non i valori della pena in sé e per sé considerati, ma le particolari esigenze di tutela della collettività, che vengono apprezzate dal legislatore in rapporto ad una serie molteplice elements, historically changing and the result of policy choices reprehensible criminal not in control of the constitutionality of laws, unless it is manifestly unreasonable options.
The manifest unreasonableness can be detected or because of confrontation with tertia comparationis homogeneous, or in response to the finding of an inherent contradiction of the contested provision.
In this case the subject of these proceedings are not satisfied neither the first nor the second hypothesis.
3.4. - Not the first, since, as already mentioned, the sort of weather knows mandatory arrest for crimes in flagrante delicto, or attempted, whose penis minimum and maximum are set by the legislature on values \u200b\u200bsimilar to those of the crime of unjustified detention of foreigners in the State.
By way of example, in addition to what is said above about the offense attempted, we can cite the art. 624-a cod. pen., which provides for the burglary and theft by ripping, imprisonment from one to six years. This case was included in Article. 10, paragraph 2 of Law March 26, 2001, No 128 (Legislative measures for the protection of public safety), including mandatory arrest in cases of flagrante delicto covered by art. 380, paragraph 2, no. proc. pen .. As with the issue in this case, it is criminal acts which resulted in time after the entry into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an increased public concern, which the legislature has decided to respond, among other things, providing for the arrest mandatory.
As for the complaint concerning the relationship between the arrest and the tenuous nature of the mandatory penalty prescribed by law, this Court has stated, for a similar case, that "it is a policy choice of social prevention of crime attributable to the legislator, who decided it should matter, in its discretionary determinations by the entity's objective of crime and punishment prescribed by law "(Case No 588 of 1989, according to Sentence No. 211 of 1975, the same principle expresses the sentence no 305, 1996).
More generally, this Court has emphasized the insufficiency of the grounds of constitutionality based on "a comparison between the rules relating to precautionary measures, carried out on one floor dell'offensività rather than on the broader context of overall needs can be ensured using the measures in question "(Case No. 22 of 2007). The choice
mandatory arrest in flagrante delicto for the crime at issue is the subject of reviews related to a policy response that Parliament has decided to implement, in this as in other cases, in the face of social perception of the dangerousness of a phenomenon (in this case, the breach to the order of removal following a deportation order), subject to the guarantee of judicial review on the existence of conditions for the application of the measure. This Court has indeed drawn attention to the importance that "the art. 385 cod. proc. pen. generally excludes the arrest when, under the circumstances, the fact is made in the fulfillment of a duty or exercising a legitimate right, or in the presence of a ground for non-punishment: and the same rule can not apply a fortiori, in the case, as in this case, di elemento negativo interno allo stesso fatto tipico» (sentenza n. 5 del 2004).
Non spetta a questa Corte esprimere valutazioni sull’efficacia della risposta repressiva penale rispetto a comportamenti antigiuridici che si manifestino nell’ambito del fenomeno imponente dei flussi migratori dell’epoca presente, che pone gravi problemi di natura sociale, umanitaria e di sicurezza. Al giudice delle leggi appartiene il compito di verificare che il legislatore non abbia introdotto ingiustificate disparità di trattamento all’interno di un quadro normativo storicamente dato.
Per i motivi esposti, si deve ritenere che la previsione dell’arresto obbligatorio si collochi sulla stessa linea che ha indotto il legislature to similar predictions in other cases.
3.5. - It is not found even in the contested provision, an inherent contradiction, which proves the manifest unreasonableness. Not valid in regard to the judgment No 223, 2004 of this Court, since such a ruling of unconstitutionality was based on the obvious contradiction inherent in precautelare a measure that could never be an outlet of the case, given the nature of contravention of the offense under the law then in force, and the related inapplicability precautionary measures by the court, thus remaining "end in itself." After the legislative change that has transformed the situation of "undue detention" da contravvenzione in delitto, punito con la pena della reclusione da uno a quattro anni (e dunque suscettibile dell’applicazione di una misura cautelare personale), la contraddizione riscontrata dalla Corte nella citata pronuncia è venuta meno, fermi restando i rilievi sugli squilibri, le sproporzioni e le disarmonie del complessivo sistema sanzionatorio già segnalati dalla sentenza n. 22 del 2007, rimediabili solo da un intervento organico del legislatore.
per questi motivi
LA CORTE COSTITUZIONALE
riuniti i giudizi,
dichiara non fondata la questione di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 14, comma 5-quinquies, del decreto legislativo 25 luglio 1998, n. 286 (Testo unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero), come sostituito dall’art. 1 della legge 12 novembre 2004, n. 271 (Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 14 settembre 2004, n. 241, recante disposizioni urgenti in materia di immigrazione), sollevata in riferimento agli artt. 3 e 13 della Costituzione, dal Tribunale di Paola, sezione distaccata di Scalea, con le ordinanze indicate in epigrafe;
dichiara inammissibili le questioni di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 14, commi 5-ter e 5-quinquies, del d.lgs. n. 286 del 1998, sollevate, in riferimento agli artt. 3, 10, 13, 27 e 136 Cost., dal Tribunale di Agrigento, sezioni distaccate Canicattì and Licata, with the order mentioned in the inscription.
Decided in Rome, the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, June 23, 2008.
F.to:
Franco BILE, Chairman
Gaetano SILVESTRI, Editor
Maria Rosaria Fruscella, Chancellor
Filed in Chancery 27 June 2008.
| | | | |
