The Court of Udine raised a question of constitutional legitimacy concerning certain law provisions on special preventive measures (Articles 1, 3 e 5 of law No. 1423 of 1956 and Articles 1, 4.1.c, 6 and 8 od legislative decree No. 159 of 2011), seemingly inconsistent with the freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR. Unlike other Italian courts, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to take into consideration the internal effects of the decision of the ECHR Court on the case de Tommaso v. Italy (Grand Chamber, 23 February 2017). Although that case cannot be regarded as an expression of well-established ECHR Court’s jurisprudence, the fact that the relevant judgment was issued by the Grand Chamber is enough, for the Court of Udine, to make that Italian courts have an obligation to defer the question to the Constitutional Court for solution.
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; 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