News Supreme Court rulings July 2021

Down payment: return does not extinguish the right to double

The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 19801/2021, affirmed that the restitution, made by the defaulting party, of the check paid as a down payment under Article 1385 of the Civil Code, does not extinguish the down payment relationship nor the right of the fulfilling party to claim double the same, which is terminated only where an “unequivocal abdicative will” of the latter emerges, which is in no way inferable from the mere acceptance of the returned check.

In the case at hand, in fact, the return of the amount paid as down payment and deposit had followed the explicit declaration by the promising seller that he no longer wished to finalize the sale agreed upon in the preliminary agreement, behavior which, according to the judges, constitutes a default and, therefore, legitimizes the exercise of the right of withdrawal by the promising buyer under the second paragraph of Article 1385 of the Civil Code with the right to demand double the deposit.

Forfeiture of first home benefits if buyer does not establish residence there

The Fifth Civil Section of the Supreme Court, in Order no. n. 18939/2021, ruled that on the subject of tax benefits for the purchase of the ‘first home,’ in order to maintain the benefit, it is necessary for the person who purchased the property to establish his or her residence there, within the period of one year after the alienation of the previous property.

The judges also clarified that the circumstance that the new property is located in the municipality where the purchaser is working is not relevant for the purposes of maintaining the benefit, as “such an occurrence is considered by Article 1, Note II bis, of the Tariff, Part One, annexed to Presidential Decree No. 131/1986 only for the granting of the benefit, and not also to prevent its forfeiture.”

RCA insurance also operates on private areas

The United Civil Sections of the Supreme Court, in ruling no. 21983 of July 30, 2021, sanctioned the operation of RCA coverage even if the damage occurred in private places.

The Ermellini, have, in fact, clarified that under Article 122 of the Private Insurance Code, the concept of “road traffic” must be understood broadly, by which is meant “that on any space where the vehicle can be used in a manner consistent with its usual function.”

The Supreme Court, made an adaptive interpretation of the rule of domestic law to the position long expressed by the European Court of Justice, which had already identified as a decisive criterion for determining the scope of insurance coverage only the “use of the vehicle in accordance with the usual function of the same,” and not attributing, instead, any relevance to the public or private nature of the road or the number of people entitled to frequent such areas.