News Supreme Court rulings October 2012

It is not a crime to smoke a “joint” on vacation.
The Supreme Court, in its September 11, 2012 ruling no. 34758, admits the possibility of possessing, while on vacation, such a quantity of hashish as to allow the packaging of “joints” for the duration of the vacation.
The subject in question was in the mountains to spend a week’s vacation, and the dose of hashish would have been used, as he repeatedly clarified, exclusively for personal use.
The Court, in the aforementioned ruling, stated that the mere fact of possessing a dose in excess of the normal limits set by law is not sufficient to establish an absolute presumption of use for other than exclusively personal use, further stipulating that the reason for possession will have to be taken into consideration on a case-by-case basis.

It is permissible to insult the neighbor who warms the car engine, under the porch.
By judgment Sept. 13, 2012, no. 35239, the Supreme Court ruled that an insult to a neighbor who heats up his car engine near the veranda of another person’s home and disturbs other condominiums with noise and significant exhaust emissions is lawful.
In the present case, the condominium tenant, confronted with the unmannerly behavior of his neighbor, who had kept his car’s diesel engine running for a relevant length of time, approached the harasser and insulted him for such behavior.
According to the court, the insult addressed to the neighbor is permissible because it arose from the state of anger in which the condominium tenant was in due to the aforementioned disrespectful behavior.
The Court emphasizes that, in the crimes of insult and defamation, provocation justifies the reaction as long as, it occurs in the immediacy of the offense suffered and is not accompanied by threats of any kind.

It is legitimate to implement video footage demonstrating a teacher’s mistreatment of pupils.
The Supreme Court clarified in ruling no. 33593 of Sept. 3, 2012 that it is possible to use video footage taken with hidden cameras as evidence of the mistreatment, suffered by pupils ( slaps to the face,tugging and hair pulling ) and enacted by their teachers.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the footage had been taken through hidden video cameras by parents of pupils who complained of such behavior.
The Court ruled that it is permissible to use the aforementioned images, at trial, because, the schoolroom is not classifiable as a domicile.
The Court ruled, as stated above, based on the consideration that the schoolroom, although it integrates a place not open to the public where the teacher can exclude anyone who disturbs the proper conduct of classes, cannot be considered as the teacher’s domicile.