News Supreme Court rulings December 2017

Psychic biological damage of the de cuius: the intensity of actual suffering experienced by the victim is relevant

The extent of biological damage of a psychological nature (compensable in favor of the heirs) of one who suffers an injury that leads to his or her death should be commensurate with the intensity of the actual suffering experienced by the victim.

So stated the Supreme Court in ruling no. 29759/2017, referring to the case of a person who died, as a result of injuries, within such a time frame that he lucidly perceived the approaching lethal outcome.

However, with regard to the liquidation of this damage, if the tabular criteria are applied, the findings of the same should be adjusted to the specific case through the principle of so-called personalization.

Sexual assault occurs even in cases of initial willingness to approach followed by clear and unequivocal disagreement

For the Supreme Court, initial willingness to approach does not make sexual assault perpetrated less serious where there was later clear and unequivocal disagreement with the relationship.

In ruling no. 52809/2017 was in fact upheld the conviction under Article 609-bis of the Criminal Code against a man who sexually abused a woman: the Supreme Court deemed irrelevant the circumstance that she was the one who had initially approached him in the club where he worked, in light of the subsequent refusal expressly expressed.

In divorce, no allowance is due to former spouse who leads a decent standard of living

The ex who, after leaving the marital home, has always led a dignified life, even during the constancy of separation, without ever having received anything from her husband, is not required to receive a divorce allowance.

By measure no. 30257/2017 the Supreme Court thus ruled on the case of a woman who had challenged the revocation, decreed on appeal, of the allowance ordered in her favor in the first instance judgment. Specifically, she challenged the failure to evaluate the findings pertaining to the parties’ income imbalance, the failure to evaluate the greater economic resources of her former spouse, and the failure to consider the standard of living maintained during the marriage.