As part of a fruitful "dialogue between the Courts" and the c.d. multilevel constitutionalism the judgement of the Constitutional Court n. 24/2019, in implementation of the indications of the Court Edu in the De Tommaso case, declared the unconstitutionality of the category of individuals laid down in section 1 (1), lett. a) Legislative Decree 159/2011 ("(1) those who must be considered, on the basis of factual elements, habitually devoted to criminal traffics"); this, despite the effort to interpret in a precise way this rule, offered by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Court - at least in relation to the patrimonial measures - disputes the lack of reasonableness of this rule, in the sense that it considers the generic reference to “criminal traffics” unsuitable to base that presumption of illicit enrichment, on which the patrimonial measures are grounded. The Constitutional Court considers the hypothesis of generic dangerousness pursuant to section 4 (1), lett. b, compatible with the legality principle, offering an interpretation which is the result of a problematic legal orthopedic operation, in search of a difficult balance between the safeguards of the rule of law, on the one hand, and the efficiency instances underlying the preventive measures, on the other. The article decisively criticizes the Constitutional Court’s judgement where it attributes a mere restorative (compensatory) nature to the preventive confiscation and to the extended confiscation ex art. 240 bis c.p. - species of the genus "confiscation of suspect profits" -, with the evident aim of denying "the substantially punitive nature" and subtract them from the "constitutional and conventional statute of penalties" or better of the "criminal matter" in the broad meaning recognized by the ECourtHR, which is accomplice in this attitude of political balancing, aimed at preserving the efficiency of such measures.
Nell’ambito di un proficuo “dialogo tra le Corti” e del c.d. costituzionalismo multilivello la sentenza della Corte Costituzionale n. 24/2019, in attuazione delle indicazioni della sentenza della Corte Edu De Tommaso, ha dichiarato l’incostituzionalità della categoria dei destinatari di cui all’art. 1, c. 1, lett. a) d.lgs. 159/2011 (“coloro che debbano ritenersi, sulla base di elementi di fatto, abitualmente dediti a traffici delittuosi”) nonostante lo sforzo di interpretazione tassativizzante, offerto dalla giurisprudenza della Suprema Corte; la Corte, inoltre, - perlomeno in relazione alle misure patrimoniali – contesta la mancanza di ragionevolezza di tale fattispecie, nel senso che ritiene il generico riferimento a traffici delittuosi non idoneo a fondare quella presunzione di illecito arricchimento su cui si fondano le misure patrimoniali. La Corte Costituzionale - attribuendosi un deciso ruolo conformativo, alla ricerca di un difficile equilibrio tra esigenze di tutela delle garanzie, da una parte, e delle istanze efficientiste sottese alle misure di prevenzione, dall’altra – salva l’ipotesi di pericolosità generica di cui all’art. 4, c. 1, lett. b, con una problematica operazione di ortopedia giuridica. Il contributo critica in maniera decisa la sentenza della Corte Costituzionale laddove attribuisce una mera natura ripristinatoria alla confisca di prevenzione e alla confisca allargata ex art. 240 bis c.p. - species dell’unico genus della “confisca dei profitti sospetti” – , con l’evidente fine di negarne “la natura sostanzialmente sanzionatorio-punitiva” e sottrarle allo “statuto costituzionale e convenzionale delle pene” o meglio della “materia penale” nell’accezione ampia riconosciuta dalla Corte Edu, complice del resto in tale atteggiamento di equilibrismo politico volto a preservare l’efficienza di tali misure.
La confisca di prevenzione nella tutela costituzionale multilivello (Corte Cost. n. 24/2019) [The preventive confiscation in the multilevel constitutional protection (Constitutional Court n. 24/2019)]
Anna Maria Maugeri
2019-01-01
Abstract
As part of a fruitful "dialogue between the Courts" and the c.d. multilevel constitutionalism the judgement of the Constitutional Court n. 24/2019, in implementation of the indications of the Court Edu in the De Tommaso case, declared the unconstitutionality of the category of individuals laid down in section 1 (1), lett. a) Legislative Decree 159/2011 ("(1) those who must be considered, on the basis of factual elements, habitually devoted to criminal traffics"); this, despite the effort to interpret in a precise way this rule, offered by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Court - at least in relation to the patrimonial measures - disputes the lack of reasonableness of this rule, in the sense that it considers the generic reference to “criminal traffics” unsuitable to base that presumption of illicit enrichment, on which the patrimonial measures are grounded. The Constitutional Court considers the hypothesis of generic dangerousness pursuant to section 4 (1), lett. b, compatible with the legality principle, offering an interpretation which is the result of a problematic legal orthopedic operation, in search of a difficult balance between the safeguards of the rule of law, on the one hand, and the efficiency instances underlying the preventive measures, on the other. The article decisively criticizes the Constitutional Court’s judgement where it attributes a mere restorative (compensatory) nature to the preventive confiscation and to the extended confiscation ex art. 240 bis c.p. - species of the genus "confiscation of suspect profits" -, with the evident aim of denying "the substantially punitive nature" and subtract them from the "constitutional and conventional statute of penalties" or better of the "criminal matter" in the broad meaning recognized by the ECourtHR, which is accomplice in this attitude of political balancing, aimed at preserving the efficiency of such measures.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
DPC_Riv_Trim_3_2019_Maugeri_Albuquerque.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Dimensione
1.11 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.11 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.