Practical guide

How to draft the richiesta di riesame (request for review) of a decreto di sequestro (seizure decree) under Art. 355 c.p.p. with AI

2 min read · Updated September 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

The request for review (riesame) against a seizure decree is the primary legal remedy to challenge the legitimacy of an evidentiary seizure initiated by the judicial police and validated by the Public Prosecutor. This guide examines how to structure the appeal under Art. 355 c.p.p. to obtain the return of seized assets.

In brief

The request for review under Art. 355 c.p.p. is the remedy available against the Public Prosecutor's decree validating an evidentiary seizure (sequestro probatorio). The application must be filed within ten days from the date of notification or knowledge of the validation decree (decreto di convalida). Jurisdiction lies with the Review Court (Tribunale del riesame) of the provincial capital where the office that issued the decree is located. The document must challenge the relevance (pertinenzialità) between the asset and the crime, seeking the revocation of the seizure and the return of the items.

The steps

1.
Verification of requirements and standing
The first step is to ascertain the nature of the seizure: Art. 355 c.p.p. concerns seizures carried out by the judicial police on their own initiative and subsequently validated by the Public Prosecutor (PM). Standing to file for review is granted to the defendant, the person from whom the items were seized, and anyone entitled to their return. It is crucial to verify that the PM issued the validation decree within 48 hours of receiving the seizure report (verbale di sequestro), otherwise the measure becomes ineffective. If validation is not granted, the assets must be returned immediately.
2.
Drafting the grounds for review
When drafting the document with edit.legal, you must focus on the lack of relevance (pertinenzialità). An evidentiary seizure is only legitimate if aimed at establishing the facts. You should challenge the abstract configuration of the crime and the absence of specific reasoning regarding the necessity of keeping the assets seized for evidentiary purposes.
3.
Filing with the competent Court
The request must be filed with the registry of the Review Court in the provincial capital where the PM's office that issued the decree is located. The deadline is ten days, running from the notification of the decree or the execution of the seizure, whichever is later.

Legal basis: Art. 355 c.p.p.Art. 324 c.p.p.Art. 253 c.p.p.

Mistakes to avoid

Erroneously identifying the Court of the district capital as competent.
Filing the request after the mandatory ten-day deadline.
Failing to attach proof of standing for return if the applicant is not the defendant.

Frequently asked questions

Which court has territorial jurisdiction for the review?

According to Art. 324 paragraph 5 c.p.p., referred to by Art. 355 c.p.p., jurisdiction lies with the court of the provincial capital where the office that issued the decree is located.

What happens if the PM does not validate the seizure within 48 hours?

The seizure loses its effectiveness and the judicial police must immediately return the seized items to the person entitled to them.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 17 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction

What edit.legal automates

—Use edit.legal to analyze the validation decree and identify reasoning flaws.
—Verify compliance with the 48-hour procedural deadlines for validation using AI.
—Generate a draft of the grounds based on the lack of evidentiary relevance (pertinenzialità).