News Supreme Court rulings May 2013

For the noisy sandwich shop! No condemnation if it disturbs only a few condominium residents.
The Supreme Court in a judgment dated 04/17/2013 no. 17614 stated that noisy immissions, exceeding normal tolerability, constitute a crime only if they disturb an indeterminate number of people. The Supreme Court precisely in light of the fact that the complaints were voiced by only one couple reiterated in the ruling that ante, a well-established principle that the offense of disturbing people’s occupations and rest (Art. 659 of the Criminal Code) cannot be established in cases where the noisy emissions do not exceed normal tolerability and in those where it is objectively impossible to disturb an indeterminate number of people: the fact does not assume criminal relevance since the offended parties are only those who are in a place contiguous to that from which the noise derives and, therefore, the fact will have to be framed within the framework of neighborly relations.

In case of annulled marriage, the bona fide spouse is entitled to indemnity and maintenance allowance
In ruling No. 9484 of Jan. 18, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a civil marriage can be annulled if one of the spouses has not manifested his or her sexual deviation to the other even if, the latter, is discovered after the wedding. In the present case, in fact, this deviation made it impossible for the normal copying relationship to continue. The Supreme Court noted that if these issues emerge only after the marriage has been contracted, and one of the spouses, although aware of the existence of the problem, does not communicate it to the other, the latter is misled by the other. In light of the above considerations, the Supreme Court has ruled that under Article 129-bis of the Civil Code, a bona fide spouse is entitled to an allowance as well as a periodic maintenance allowance.

Car theft has the same requirements as home theft.
The Supreme Court has affirmed (ref. Judgment No. 4215/2013) that it is legitimate to frame within the scope of the offense under Art. 624 bis of the Criminal Code, theft of property stored in private car parked in the condominium area designated for public parking.
The Justices specified that private dwelling is defined as any place where “one pauses to exercise, even temporarily, manifestations of individual activities for lawful and miscellaneous reasons.” And that, in addition, the term relevance should be understood to mean the relationship of instrumentality and functional complementarity. This relationship must, therefore, meet the concrete needs of the people to whom the dwelling serves as housing.
Therefore, in light of these considerations, the Supreme Court confirmed that the vehicle assumes, in that particular context, an appurtenant function with respect to the main dwelling.