News Supreme Court Judgments April 2018

Citizen can arrest the robber caught in the act

An arrest in flagrante delicto made by private individuals that took place under Article 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is legitimate and should be validated: this rule, in fact, authorizes any person in the cases referred to in Article 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make an arrest in flagrante delicto when it concerns crimes prosecutable ex officio.

This was established by the Supreme Court in ruling no. 13094/2018, issued in connection with the case of a woman who, after engaging in conduct constituting the crimes of robbery and bodily injury inside a post office, was arrested at the hands of several citizens who chased and stopped her while she was fleeing.

The Supreme Court noted how the robber’s arrest should be qualified as lawfully executed by private individuals as a result of the pursuit carried out immediately after the commission of the crime, when the agent was in the state of flagrante delicto normatively defined by law.

Anonymous birth: the right to know one’s origins should also be extended to the knowledge of any siblings

According to the Supreme Court (Judgment No. 6963/2018), the adoptee’s right to know his or her origins, which is protected by Law No. 4 of May 1983. 184, should be extended not only to the knowledge of the biological parent but also to that of any siblings with whom there is a blood relationship.

The Court made it clear that a constitutionally oriented interpretation of the legislation aimed at protecting this right of the adoptee should include, in addition to the biological parents (particularly in cases where it is not possible to trace them), also the other closest relatives, such as siblings: this is because it is for the adoptee a right of primary importance in the construction of personal identity, which is completed with the discovery of his or her biological-genetic genealogy.

Red light: just cross the stop line for a ticket

For the purpose of imposing a fine for failure to stop at a red light, it is sufficient to cross the relevant stop line, regardless of the direction taken by the driver.

Thus, the Supreme Court, in order no. 9276/2018, dismissed the appeal in which the motorist had also objected to the failure to examine the circumstance that the road markings were invisible.

However, the Supreme Court held that, in the present case, the decisive facts for the decision were the existence of a red light and the failure to observe the corresponding stop line.