News Supreme Court rulings September 2012

It is not a crime to shake tablecloths or carpets on a neighbor’s balcony.
According to the Supreme Court( see Judgment No. 27625/2012), it is not a crime to shake tablecloth crumbs on a neighbor’s balcony or beat carpet dust on the balcony of someone living downstairs, as it does not endanger the tranquility of an indeterminate number of people. For the court, however, it is possible to obtain compensation for the damage this annoying habit causes.

No parking is allowed in the condominium alley, regardless of its width.
As stipulated in Judgment no. 14633/2012 of the Supreme Court is prohibited to park in the condominium driveway being this space reserved only for the passage for access to one’s garage. The Court rules that if the above-mentioned case of parking occurs, the other condominium owners do not have the opportunity to fully use that common space, as they cannot maneuver in or out of the garages themselves, and therefore they can take action against the condominium owner who has occupied the common space.

Tourist caught on a public beach without a bathing suit : fine upheld.
The Supreme Court in ruling no. 28990/2012 upheld the fine given to the “naturist” who sunbathed integrally naked. To no avail was the attempt by the naturist, who tried to exonerate himself by claiming that he was sure he was on a nudist beach.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has reiterated that such behavior is contrary to public decency and that full nudity can only be tolerated at nudist beaches and not at common beaches as well.

The professional register is the only legal source of knowledge of the domicile of members: it constitutes a preliminary fulfillment for the notifier to consult it for the successful completion of the notification itself (Cass. No. 14934/2012)
Court of Civil Cassation no. 14934/2012, sec. III of 6/9/2012
The Supreme Court has affirmed that the prosecutor cannot be understood to have a duty to declare in the judgment the relocation of his or her office, except in the case of carrying out activities outside the district of assignment as provided by professional rules.
This preliminary fulfillment, can only be borne by the notifier since the indication of the place of delivery of the document, in addition to being indispensable to the success of the notification, is an essential requirement for the identification of the addressee of the notification.
The petitioning party has the honor of verifying, on the appropriate registers, the actual domicile of the attorney at the time of service of the document considering, moreover, the easy consultation, resulting from the current computerization, of the professional register, representing the legal source of knowledge of the domicile of members and in which the attorney is obliged to have changes in his or her office noted.

Contrast between the operative part and the grounds of the judgment? Not relevant if clearly attributable to mere clerical error (Cass. No. 14801/2012)
Court of Civil Cassation no. 14801/2012, sec. VI of 4/9/2012
On this occasion, the Supreme Court clarified what has already been stated in previous rulings, namely, that there is a contrast between the grounds and the operative part that gives rise to the nullity of the judgment itself only if, the latter, goes to affect the suitability of the measure to make the content of the judicial ruling cognizable.
In the event that such a contrast is the result of mere oversight or carelessness in the drafting of the judgment itself, thus attributable to a simple clerical error, and the content of the judgment is identifiable and identified, without uncertainty, there is no well-founded ground for nullity of the judgment itself.

Service by mail: without the acknowledgement of receipt, the folder is void (Supreme Court No. 14861/2012)
Court of Civil Cassation no. 14861/2012, sec. V of 5/9/2012
The Supreme Court considers the acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of assessment as the only valid document attesting to the correctness of the process of formation of the tax claim based, the latter, on compliance with a certain set of acts and related notifications.
Production in court of such a document is the burden of the notifying party, and it is not given to make up for this lack with equivalent acts such as, for example, the declaration of delivery issued by the manager of the post office.
The taxpayer, lacking the service of such a notice, may assert the defect by choosing to challenge the consequential act served on him, and in such a case, the court will have to verify whether or not the defect in service exists in order to rule on the nullity of the consequential act.