News Supreme Court rulings June 2014

Drug containing alcohol? Motorist must refrain from driving
According to the Supreme Court of Cassation (ref. Judgment No. 4967/2014), the criminal nature of driving while intoxicated requires the subject officer to diligently refrain from driving where he or she has taken, for any, even justified, reason, alcohol or alcohol-containing mixtures, remedies, products and medications.
This principle, previously stated, was again reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, which clarified that in order to be able to exclude the crime of driving while intoxicated, the fact that taking certain drugs may have increased the blood alcohol concentration data cannot be relevant; this is because, in any case, those who know that they are taking such drugs must refrain from ingesting alcohol but, above all, must avoid driving.

De facto couples: no to restitution of sums paid during cohabitation

The Supreme Court emphasized that duties of a moral and social nature also arise from cohabitation; therefore, in the case of mere cohabitation, the former partner does not have to return the sums paid, during cohabitation, in fulfillment of these duties. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in ruling no. 1277 of 2014.
The Justices of Legitimacy affirmed that material assistance between cohabitants, subject to the principles of proportionality and adequacy, can be affirmed regardless of the reasons that led one or the other to contribute financially. Rather, these are “fulfillments that the social conscience deems dutiful in the context of an established affective relationship” that includes forms of cooperation and assistance both moral and material.

Condominium: Supreme Court, be careful not to “water” your neighbor. Crime.
The Supreme Court in ruling no. 21753 of May 28, 2014 ruled that a person who, for the sole purpose of wetting his neighbor whom he disliked, threw buckets of water from his balcony pretending to water his own plants is punishable for the crime of dangerous throwing of things. According to the Supreme Court, in fact, the aforementioned harassing conduct constitutes the offense under Art. 674 c.p.
As a matter of interest, it is reported that the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the neighbor had claimed that he had merely watered his plants, upheld the conviction after finding the absence of the said plants under the defendant’s balcony.