Supreme Court upholds prison sentence for drug trafficking, validates Trojan interceptions.

The Supreme Court of Cassation has confirmed the pre-trial detention in prison for a suspect accused of association for the purpose of drug trafficking, rejecting his appeal. The man contested the admissibility of evidence obtained through interceptions using a computer spyware (the so-called 'trojan') and the existence of serious indications of guilt.

The Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, establishing that the new, stricter regulations on the use of trojans, which require specific justification, apply only to proceedings registered from September 1, 2020. The case in question, dating back to 2018, is therefore governed by the previous legislation. The Court also deemed adequate the reasoning of the Tribunal regarding the presence of serious indications and the necessity of the precautionary measure, given the criminal capacity and the risk of reoffending.

The suspect was ordered to pay court costs and a financial penalty of three thousand euros. The ruling reaffirms the legitimacy of using interceptions with computer spyware according to the applicable temporal regulations and the importance of a solid evidentiary basis for crimes of association.

Interceptions using computer surveillance devices, commonly called 'trojans,' are investigative tools that allow law enforcement and judicial authorities to remotely access electronic devices such as smartphones and computers. These software programs, often installed through social engineering techniques or security exploits, enable the monitoring of communications, activation of microphones and cameras, and access to files. Their use has sparked debates for years about the balance between investigative needs and privacy protection.

The legal framework governing these tools has evolved over time. Until September 1, 2020, a less detailed set of regulations was in force. From that date, a new law introduced stricter requirements, mandating that judicial authorities provide specific and detailed justification for authorizing their use and better defining operational limits. The legal principle applied is 'tempus regit actum': the law to be applied is the one in force at the time the act is committed (in this case, the initiation of the proceedings), not a subsequent one.

This Supreme Court ruling addresses precisely this temporal boundary, clarifying that proceedings initiated before September 2020 are subject to the previous rules. The decision has a concrete impact on many ongoing trials, especially for organized crime and drug trafficking offenses, where digital evidence is crucial. It also confirms a restrictive approach regarding appeals against precautionary measures, limiting the review of evidence to merely checking the logical and legal correctness of the reasoning provided by the trial judge.