ORDER NO. 113
YEAR 2026
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
composed of:
President: Giovanni AMOROSO;
Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has issued the following
ORDER
in the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Art. 27, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Legislative Decree no. 159 of September 6, 2011 (Code of Anti-Mafia Laws and Preventive Measures, as well as new provisions regarding anti-mafia documentation, pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 136 of August 13, 2010), referred by the Court of Cassation, United Criminal Sections, in the criminal proceedings against F. R., by order dated April 24, 2026, registered under no. 84 of the 2026 registry of orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 20, first special series, of the year 2026.
Having examined the notice of appearance of F. R., as well as the intervention of T. S., I. S., and G. S., and of the President of the Council of Ministers;
having heard the Reporting Judge Francesco Viganò in the chambers of June 22, 2026, scheduled, pursuant to Art. 5, paragraph 1, of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court, for the decision on the admissibility of the interventions of T. S., I. S., and G. S.;
deliberated in the chambers of June 22, 2026.
Considering that the United Criminal Sections of the Court of Cassation have raised, of their own motion, in reference to Arts. 3, 24, 41, 42, 111, and 117 (correctly: 117, first paragraph) of the Constitution—the latter in relation to Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR—questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Art. 27, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Legislative Decree no. 159 of September 6, 2011 (Code of Anti-Mafia Laws and Preventive Measures, as well as new provisions regarding anti-mafia documentation, pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 136 of August 13, 2010), "in the part where it does not provide for the right to appeal against the decision denying a request for the revocation of a seizure preceding a preventive confiscation”;
that the proceedings a quo originated from an appeal to the Court of Cassation against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome, which declared inadmissible the request filed by F. R. for the partial revocation of a preventive seizure previously ordered by the same Court of Appeal of Rome concerning assets all attributable to A. M., including those held through an intermediary;
that F. R. had requested the revocation of the seizure limited to a real estate unit, regarding which he claims to hold a personal right of enjoyment, as well as assets located therein, of which he claims to be the owner;
that, in the opinion of the referring court, the non-appealability of the decision rejecting the request for revocation of the seizure in preventive asset proceedings would violate the principle of equality, as it would lead to a disparity in treatment between the position of the interested third party and that of the Public Prosecutor, leaving the private party without an appropriate remedy to obtain the immediate removal of the provisional encumbrance;
that the challenged provision, according to the referring court, would also conflict with the principles, including those of conventional origin, of the effectiveness of the right to defense and a fair trial, and would violate the constitutional and conventional rights of property and economic initiative;
that on June 9, 2026, T. S., I. S., and G. S., in their capacity as legal heirs of V. S., filed a "notice of appearance” in the proceedings before this Court;
that they complain that a "patrimonial compendium” formerly belonging to their decedent was affected by the seizure ordered against A. M., and that the preventive court failed to summon them to intervene in the proceedings pursuant to Art. 23, paragraph 2, of the Anti-Mafia Code, such that they were allegedly offered "no possibility to take part in the chambers hearings, nor to discuss the origin and alleged illegality of the original funds used for the purchase of the assets back in 1996”;
that they further state that they had filed a request with the Court of Appeal of Rome for the revocation of the seizure limited to the assets belonging to the decedent, and had subsequently filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation against the decision by which the same Court of Appeal declared the request inadmissible, as not provided for by Art. 27 of the Anti-Mafia Code: an appeal which had been scheduled for hearing on October 14, 2025, then postponed first to April 5, 2026, and subsequently to June 25, 2026;
that they therefore argue that they are in "the exact same substantive and procedural position as the appellant [F. R.], since the same and identical legal issues concerning the violation of the principle of adversarial proceedings raised by the United Sections in the referral order exist with regard to them”;
that, for these reasons, they ask this Court to ascertain and declare their "full standing for immediate appeal and participation in these incidental proceedings […] as interested third parties and legal heirs who were totally and innocently excluded from the genetic adversarial process in the proceedings a quo,” while also formulating a "request for authorization for the oral discussion by the appointed defense counsel” and "authorization for consultation and full access to the electronic case file”;
that, on the merits, they argue extensively in favor of the soundness of the questions raised by the referring court.
Considering that T. S., I. S., and G. S. are not parties to the proceedings a quo, which consist of the case pending before the Court of Cassation against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome declaring inadmissible the request for revocation of the seizure filed by F. R. limited to the assets of which the latter claims to be the owner or regarding which he invokes a personal right of enjoyment;
that, therefore, their "notice of appearance” must be reclassified as a request for intervention by third parties in relation to the proceedings a quo;
that such request was filed on June 9, 2026, and therefore under the effectiveness of the amendments to the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court, adopted by resolution of March 12, 2026, published in the Official Gazette of April 23, 2026, no. 94, and entered into force on May 8, 2026;
that this Court must therefore proceed in chambers to decide on the admissibility of the intervention, pursuant to the current Art. 5 of the Supplementary Rules;
that, regarding the assessment of the prerequisites for the admissibility of the intervention, the new text of Art. 4 of the same Supplementary Rules applies;
that the motion for intervention was filed within the twenty-day deadline from the publication of the referral order in the Official Gazette as per Art. 4, paragraph 1, of the Supplementary Rules;
that Art. 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules, which remained substantially unchanged following the aforementioned amendments, cannot be applied, as the intervenors cannot be classified as "holders of a qualified interest, directly and immediately related to the relationship at issue in the proceedings”;
that, on this point, the jurisprudence of this Court has recently reaffirmed that, in incidental proceedings of constitutional legitimacy, the "relationship at issue in the proceedings” must be understood as that which is the subject of the proceedings a quo (judgment no. 63 of 2026, point 7; orders no. 102 and no. 69 of 2026), such that an intervenor may be said to have a qualified interest, directly and immediately related to said relationship, when "a possible ruling upholding the questions of constitutional legitimacy would produce an immediate impact on the subjective position” of the same (order no. 8 of 2026; judgment no. 98 of 2019, point 2.1. of the Legal Considerations, and order no. 85 of 2025; in the same sense, judgment no. 159 of 2019, point 2 of the Legal Considerations, and order no. 111 of 2020);
that the relationship at issue in the proceedings a quo is identifiable in the real rights and rights of enjoyment claimed by F. R. regarding the specific assets subject to such rights and currently under preventive seizure, whereas the present intervenors claim rights over distinct assets, which the proceedings a quo could not affect, and which are in fact the subject of a different proceeding currently pending before the Court of Cassation;
that it is not sufficient, for the purpose of the admissibility of an intervention pursuant to Art. 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules, that the party is the holder of interests analogous to those at issue in the main proceedings, or that they are a party to a similar but different proceeding from the proceedings a quo, upon which the decision of this Court may still have an influence (judgment no. 63 of 2026, point 7; orders no. 102 of 2026 and no. 85 of 2025);
that the applicability, in the case at hand, of the new paragraph 4 of the same Art. 4 must also be excluded, since the present intervenors have not demonstrated that they had raised, prior to the date of publication of the referral order, an objection of constitutional illegitimacy concerning the same provision challenged by the referring court;
that, consequently, the intervention must be declared inadmissible.
Having regard to Arts. 4 and 5 of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
for these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares the intervention filed by T. S., I. S., and G. S. inadmissible.
Decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on June 22, 2026.
Signed:
Giovanni AMOROSO, President
Francesco VIGANÒ, Reporting Judge
Roberto MILANA, Clerk of the Court
Filed in the Clerk's Office on June 23, 2026
The anonymized version is consistent, in its text, with the original.