News Supreme Court rulings December 2012

Green light to choose the name “Andrew” even when the daughter is a girl.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated Nov. 20, 2012, no. 20385 declared the possibility of naming their female daughter Andrea.
In the aforementioned ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a parental couple’s protest against the decision that had ordered the rectification of the name “Andrea,” which they had given to their baby girl, replacing it with the name “Giulia Andrea,” since, according to Article 35 of Presidential Decree 396 of 2000, the name must correspond to the child’s sex, and in Italian culture such a name has a masculine value.
The Supreme Court found that the name Andrew is not suitable to create doubt about the sex of the person on whom it was imposed. Indeed, the Court believes that in a cultural context that is no longer so strongly nationalistic, it cannot be traced exclusively to a male person. In addition, it has been clarified by the Supreme Court that the name ‘Andrew’ is sexually neutral in nature in most European countries and that the parent has the power/right to impose a foreign name on his or her child as long as it does not harm his or her dignity.

The speed camera should be properly reported for the purpose of the validity of the ticket.
In a judgment dated November 28, 2012 no. 21199 the Supreme Court has ruled that a fine taken by a speed camera is invalid if the presence of the automatic detector is not signaled along the road.
The fined motorist disputed the validity of this penalty because the presence of the device along the stretch of road had been made solely and exclusively through local press and not through appropriate on-site signage.
The Supreme Court ruled that the publication of the news of the presence of the speed camera in the local press is not sufficient for the validity of the fine; instead, on-the-spot reporting by means of a suitable sign is necessary in order to warn the motorist of the possible detection of infractions.

Bringing mistress to Christmas lunch with wife and children: separation to be charged to husband

The Supreme Court of Cassation ( Judgment No. 17195/2012) ruled that the husband who caused the end of his marriage by his behavior should be charged with the separation.
The Supreme Court has ruled against the husband who imposes the presence of his mistress even at Christmas lunches with his wife and children, threatening, otherwise, his absence, the exclusive charge of separation.
The man also made excuses at trial, such as claiming that theirs was merely “dating,” an “apparent adultery,” but absolutely not real.
The court, analyzing the situation, ruled that the man’s assumed role of “chaperone and champion” toward “the friend” was ill reconciled with a generic relationship of friendship, repeatedly extolled by the man, also in view of the fact that such “dating” had been a major contributor to the breakdown of the marriage.