With this decree, the Court of Palermo imposed preventive measures upon a person because of his social dangerousness. The ECHR Court in the case de Tommaso (decision of the Grand Chamber of 23 February 2017) censured the Italian legislation because of its vagueness on this kind of preventive measures. The Court of Palermo observed, however, that the ECHR Court did not deliver a pilot-judgment nor the judgment on the De Tommaso can be regarded as the expression of a principle well established in the ECHR Court’s jurisprudence. The Italian Constitutional Court ruled (in its decisions No. 49/2015 and No. 348 and 349 of 2007) that the Italian judge has a duty to submit possible conflicts between internal norms and the ECHR to the Constitutional Court only if it is impossible to interpret these norms in a manner consistent with the ECHR and the Constitution. In the case at hand, no possible conflict existed, for the Court of Palermo, between the applicable legislation and the ECHR or the Italian Constitution.
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 Palermo, I Criminal Section – measures of prevention, 28 March 2017; 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 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