News Supreme Court rulings April 2015

He doesn’t pay the bill and the creditor puts him on YouTube in the “Slap Faces” column. For the Supreme Court, it is defamation
The Supreme Court in ruling no. 12695/2015 clarified that a person (creditor) who posts a video under the heading “Slap Faces” on the Youtube website revealing the first and last name of their debtor, with un-Oxfordian comments towards the debtor’s mother, commits the crime of defamation.
To no avail were the defendant’s contentions that he had not published anything and the exceptions raised regarding the lateness of the lawsuit because it was exposed eight months after the publication of the incriminating video.
With regard to whether the online stunt could be traced back to the defendant, the Ermellini found that there was a “full correspondence between the description given of himself in the account” when registering for the site and the defendant himself. As for, on the other hand, the lateness of the lawsuit, the Justices specified that the forfeiture of the right to file a lawsuit, which operates three months after the discovery of the wrongful act, must be ascertained according to “strict criteria” and not on the basis of mere presumptions or mere suppositions; moreover, the Court concluded, the burden of proof rests on the person who alleges the unnecessary lapse of time and the aforementioned burden has not been met.

Supreme Court: Pub operator who does not chase away noisy customers commits crime

A recent Supreme Court decision (Judgment No. 12967/2015) found that if customers who frequent a pub are not familiar with the rules of good manners and are particularly noisy, the manager has the power but also the duty to chase them away if the noise disturbs the peace of neighbors’ rest. In fact, if he fails to do so, he risks a criminal conviction.
This is what the Supreme Court confirmed in the judgment before it by which it found the owner of a pub guilty of the crime provided for and punished by Article 659 first paragraph of the Criminal Code, condemning her, also, to pay damages in favor of the civil parties formed in the criminal proceedings.
According to the Supreme Court, a person who runs a commercial establishment is also liable for the offense in the indictment for the noise of those who frequent the premises. This is because it is precisely the capacity of the owner of the management entails the assumption of the legal obligation to control that the frequentation of the premises by customers does not result in conduct contrary to the regulations concerning the security police.

Supreme Court: is a parking ticket valid if the sign was put up after the motorist has already parked?
According to the Civil Court of Cassation (see Judgment No. 5663 of 2015), it is possible to penalize a motorist who parks his or her car along a stretch of road that, only several days after the said parking, is affected by maintenance work.
To no avail was the motorist challenging the administrative penalty by objecting that his car was already there before the prohibition signs were installed and that he had not been put in a position to know the circumstance.
According to the Supreme Court, however, the culpability of the violator for disregarding the continued usability of the road for the purpose of parking the car can be inferred.
In addition, the Court continues, “constitutes the legal deadline of 48 hours between the installation of the prohibition signs in question and the entry into force of the same so that, for the purposes of the configurability of the contravention, a subjective assessment by the judge as to the sufficiency or otherwise of said deadline is not allowed.” From these statements it is possible to assume that there is therefore no margin of discretion for the Judge, who must limit himself to applying the letter of the law.