Today we will address a DASPO violation case addressed by our firm

The Daspo it is a provision which prohibits people considered dangerous from accessing sporting events.

Mr. P. was the recipient of a DASPO provision (Prohibition of Access to Sports Events) by the Quaestor for causing unrest during a football match.
The DASPO required the P. to report to the Carabinieri station to "sign" on the attendance register at sporting events.
The same, however, on the occasion of a match of the National team, together with Messrs S. and D., did not go to sign at the Carabinieri Station and were therefore all referred to the Judicial Authority.

The Judgment:

In the course of the trial, the violation of art. 415-bis paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code for which the documents were returned to the Public Prosecutor for the performance of the duties of the rite.
Subsequently, the violation of art. 542 of the criminal procedure code with reference to Legislative Decree 7 September 2012, n. 155 of the review of the judicial districts (so-called "court-cutters) since the place where the judgment was to be held was not correctly indicated.
Finally, the prosecuting judge was refused, on the basis of the sentence of the Constitutional Court n. 283/2000 which declared the constitutional illegitimacy of art. 37 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deems the judge called to decide on the responsibility of a defendant who has expressed an evaluation of the merits of the same fact against the same subject in another proceeding, even if not criminal, as recusable.
Exception cultivated up to the Supreme Court of Cassation.
The Court of Appeal put an end to the affair with the ruling of not having to proceed due to the prescription of the crime.
In fact, the violation of art. 1 paragraph 1 Law no. 118/2014 which introduced the transitional regulations pursuant to art. 15-bis Law no. 67/2014 which essentially imposed, with a sort of ultractivity of the declaration of default, the obligation to notify the accused of the default extract of the first degree sentence.
The defendants S. and D., defended by another defender, were sentenced to the penalty of justice.