The recent “additive” intervention made by the Constitutional Court with sentence no. 252 of 2020 established that the oral authorization by the Prosecutor for personal or domiciliary is not sufficient because it requires subsequent written validation, based on the notion of "motivated act". The contested legislation was incompatible with a series of constitutional parameters, including Articles 13, second paragraph, and 14, second paragraph, of the Constitution.
L’ESTENSIONE DELL’OBBLIGO DI CONVALIDA ALLE PERQUISIZIONI PERSONALI O DOMICILIARI AUTORIZZATE TELEFONICAMENTE (NOTA A CORTE COST. SENT. N.252/2020)
Francesco Perchinunno
2021-01-01
Abstract
The recent “additive” intervention made by the Constitutional Court with sentence no. 252 of 2020 established that the oral authorization by the Prosecutor for personal or domiciliary is not sufficient because it requires subsequent written validation, based on the notion of "motivated act". The contested legislation was incompatible with a series of constitutional parameters, including Articles 13, second paragraph, and 14, second paragraph, of the Constitution.File in questo prodotto:
| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Oss. cost. 2021_3_Perchinunno.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza:
Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione
295.23 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
295.23 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
