Abstract. The legislative description of the types of so-called generic dangerousness of “subjects habitually engaged in criminal affairs” and of those who “habitually live on the earnings of criminal activities” has not undergone substantial changes in recent decades. A profound transformation of the same has, however, occurred as a result of the jurisprudence: that of the Supreme Court, that of the Constitutional Court, that of the European Court. This jurisprudential restyling operation, however, if it has allowed to overcome some perplexities and resolve some doubts, on the other hand it has also opened up new questions (among other things, the fate of special surveillance and confiscations arranged in against the subjects referred to in letter a), and has not managed to solve the knot of evidence sources that can be used to ascertain this dangerousness.
SUMMARY: 1. Introduction. – 2. The expansion of the circle of subjects involved. – 3. The judgment of the ECtHR De Tommaso v. Italy. – 4. The sentence of the Constitutional Court n. 24/2019. – 5. The problems relating to the cases of generic dangerousness of lart. 1 letters a) and b) antimafia code still open. – 5.1. The letter a) survives for the prevention measures of the foglio di via and avviso orale? – 5.2. What is the fate of the preventive measures applied in the past on the basis of lett. a)? – 5.3. The judicial assessment of the types of generic danger. – 6. It doesn’t end there.
To read the Article, click on “open file”.
* Il presente contributo è destinato agli Studi in onore di Antonio Fiorella. L’articolo non è stato sottoposto a peer review in quanto già accettato per la pubblicazione nel predetto volume.