News Supreme Court rulings September 2015

Protest sheet on the balcony of the house? Can constitute defamation
According to the Justices of Legitimacy (Judgment No. 33274/2015), the sheet displayed by a man in plain view on the balcony of his house with the words “This woman has been swindled,” the image of the said woman, and the indication of the name and surname of the swindler integrates the prerequisites for a conviction for defamation.
The court, while considering the defendant’s behavior to be punishable, noted that, in the specific case, the man’s gesture could not be categorized, as he claimed, as a “reaction” or as a justification making the act non-punishable.

Do cowbells and bleating disturb you? Existential damage must be proven
A recent ruling by the Supreme Court (No. 17013/2015) shows that in order to obtain compensation for existential damage for the disturbance and loss of rest caused by the bleating and cowbells of a flock of sheep, it is essential to provide adequate proof of the damage suffered.
The Ermellini therefore rejected, because they considered the claims made by the alleged injured parties, who claimed to have suffered an injury to their right to freedom of movement, the quiet enjoyment of property as well as the serene enjoyment of leisure time, to be lacking in evidence.

Daughter off-site student? No money for rent if he can stay at his grandfather’s house
The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 16903/2015, denied an increase in the father’s maintenance allowance if his daughter, a college student away from home, arbitrarily refuses on a whim and without a valid reason the offer of hospitality made by her paternal grandfather.
Indeed, the Justices of legitimacy endorsed the decision of the trial judge that the expense of housing rent could not be counted either as an extraordinary expense, as an item within the daily living costs of the young girl, or as an ordinary expense to be borne by the parents. In fact, the parents would not be entitled to claim any contribution for what they paid in order to meet their daughter’s expenses, and this was because there was the possibility for her to live/live at the accommodation owned by her paternal grandfather.