News Supreme Court rulings November 2015

Isn’t the lawyer’s number listed? Phone company pays damages only if attorney proves revenue decline
A recent ruling by the Supreme Court (No. 21787/2015) shows that a lawyer who complains about a decline in his or her firm’s turnover due to the failure of a telephone number to be included in the list of subscribers to a telephone company cannot claim damages for loss of chance from the latter, unless he or she is able to prove the damage suffered. According to what the Supreme Court has already expressed, in fact, in the equitable liquidation of damages for loss of chance, the lack of proof, even presumptive proof, of its certain existence, leaves no room for any form of compensation, and this in view of the impossibility or great difficulty of proving its extent.

Supreme Court: an administrator who sends a letter to condominiums reporting offensive phrases uttered at a meeting commits defamation
In ruling no. 44387/2015, the Supreme Court of Cassation clarified that it is punishable for defamation if an administrator transmits to all condominium owners an insulting letter in which the disparaging epithets uttered during the condominium meeting toward other co-owners are reported, pointing out that such behavior, having nothing to do with the right-duty to inform condominium owners about what was said and happened during the meeting itself, constitutes on the contrary a channel to amplify the spread of insults.

Supreme Court: no escape for those who prefer prison to their wives
The judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation, in ruling no. 44595/2015, sanctioned that a man subjected to the precautionary measure of house arrest who, following yet another argument with his spouse, flees the house to escape her wrath, immediately telephoning law enforcement and asking to be taken to prison immediately, is not committing evasion. In fact, the court noted the absence of offensiveness in his conduct, given that “at no time did he evade the opportunity for control officers to carry out the necessary checks by remaining in the immediate vicinity of the forced residence.”