Removal order, no need for a judge

The preventive measure of the travel document, ordered by the Questore against persons dangerous to public safety, does not restrict the personal liberty of the person concerned, but merely limits his freedom of movement. This is the reason why the intervention of a judge, as provided for by the Constitution for every restrictive measure of personal liberty, is not necessary. It will then be up to the administrative judge and the criminal judge to verify the legitimacy and proportionality of the measure in the individual case, if the person concerned lodges an appeal against the decision of the Quaestor or is charged in the criminal court for the violation of the obligations established in the measure. This is the conclusion reached by the Constitutional Court in ruling no. 203 filed yesterday and written by Francesco Viganò.

The ruling confirms the orientation of the Court and the legislature, consolidated over time, according to which the prohibition to go to a certain place is, as a rule, less burdensome for the person concerned than the obligation to go to, or to remain in, a certain place: 'That assumption still offers a relatively safe guide in distinguishing between the different levels of intensity of measures that nevertheless affect a person's freedom to move in space'.

No friction then, always a delicate subject, with the international provisions. For the Court, in fact, neither Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights nor Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights on freedom of movement require that the measure restricting a person's freedom be adopted by a judicial authority.