In deciding on the reformatio in peius of a preventive measure, the Court of Palermo considered whether it had a duty to conform to the interpretation given by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR Court to Article 2 (Freedom of movement) of the ECHR Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 (Protection of property) of the ECHR Protocol No. 1, in the case de Tommaso v. Italy (2017). It concluded that it was not the case because such a duty exists only with regard to well-established interpretation of the ECHR Court, while the decision in the case De Tommaso is linked to that specific case. By this decree, the Court of Palermo deviated from previous rulings of other courts concerning the confirmation of preventive measures, which submitted the issue to the Constitutional Court for national law provisions to be possibly inconsistent with the ‘De Tommaso’ judgment of the Grand Chamber.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, 23 February 2017, de Tommaso v. Italy; Decree of the Court of Milan, Autonomous Section on Preventive Measures, No. 13 of 7 March 2017; Order of the Court of Appeal of Naples, VIII Criminal Section, 15 March 201; Decree of the Court of Rome, Preventive Measures Section, No. 30 of 3 April 2017; Order of the Court of Udine, Criminal Section, 4 April 201; Decision of the Court of Cassation, United Criminal Sections, No. 40076 of 27 Avril 2017; Decree of the Court of Palermo, I Criminal Section – preventive measures, 16-29 May 2017; Decree of the Court of Palermo, I Section on Preventive Measures, No. 62 of 1 June 2017; Order of the Court of Cassation, II Criminal Section, No. 49194 of 25 October 2017