News Supreme Court rulings August 2020

1. Limits on entitlement to child support for an adult child

The Supreme Court, in Order no. 17183/2020, clarified the limits of an adult child’s right to obtain dependent maintenance from his or her parents, specifying that the child is obliged to take action in order to find employment that will ensure his or her independent livelihood, taking into account the real opportunities offered by the labor market and where necessary, scaling back his or her expectations.

Once the chosen studies are finished and the average time required for a young person to find work has passed, the eligibility of the adult child for self-support is presumed and the right to maintenance is terminated, since it cannot be accepted, because of the principle of self-responsibility, that the child postpones to the bitter end the attainment of economic independence while waiting to find the job deemed in keeping with his or her aspirations, relying on his or her parents’ obligation to support him or her.

2. New directions for speed camera fines

The report accusing the driver of violating the speed limits set by the Highway Code cannot be limited to a generic statement that the speed camera was“duly approved and serviced.” If there are any disputes about the reliability of the device, the judge will have to ascertain whether such verifications were actually carried out. In fact, the annotation made by the verbalists on the point, which is not covered by privileged faith, is not sufficient. In addition, the burden is on the public administration to prove that the automatic detection equipment has been approved and subjected to periodic inspections.

These are the principles that emerge from two orders published on June 18 by the Sixth Civil Section of the Supreme Court (No. 11776/2020 and No. 11869/2020) and originated from challenges against minutes in which exceeding the speed limits under Article 142 C.d.S. had been challenged.

3. No crime if child does not attend middle school

The Supreme Court in ruling no. 23488/2020 stated that there is no crime where the mother does not make her child attend middle school.

In fact, it has been clarified that the failure of the exerciser of parental authority to comply with the obligation to have the minor attend junior high school does not constitute a crime, since Leg. December 13, 2010, no. 212, all. I, part 52, repealed Art. 8 of Law no. 1859 of 1962, which extended the application of the penalties provided for failure to comply with the obligation of elementary education, set forth in Art. 731 Penal Code, also to violations of compulsory secondary school education.