Italian Supreme Court, Third Criminal Section, judgment no. 35238/2026, hearing on 24 September 2026, filed on 2 October 2026.

A judge cannot order preventive seizure where the public prosecutor has merely requested validation of a seizure carried out as an urgent measure. The Supreme Court reiterates that imposing the measure requires a specific application by the prosecution, which cannot be inferred implicitly from the request for validation.

These are two separate procedural steps: review of the urgent measure does not replace the application required for an independent precautionary order. The preliminary investigations judge cannot therefore supplement the prosecutor’s initiative of their own motion.

The absence of an application gives rise to a nullity that may be raised by the court of its own motion at any stage or level of the proceedings under Articles 178(b) and 179 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. The defect may also be identified where it was not raised before the review tribunal.

In the case examined, the Court quashed both the review order and the preventive seizure order without remittal and directed that the assets be returned to the person entitled to them.

The judgment confirms the importance for the defence of checking the actual terms of the prosecutor’s application, as well as the reasons given in the judicial order.

Source: Full judgment – Italgiure, Italian Supreme Court. Reported by: NT+ Diritto – Il Sole 24 Ore, 2 October 2026.