News Supreme Court rulings January 2014

Rivals in love, one scratch is enough and the offense of injury is triggered.
The Supreme Court in ruling no. 51393 of Dec. 19, 2013 ruled that even a very minor scratch caused to one’s love rival during an argument falls within the scope of personal injury. According to the Supreme Court, in fact, anyone who causes any injury, including localized injury, which is minor and not likely to impair the general condition of another person commits the crime of bodily injury provided for in Article 582 of the Criminal Code.

One who disavows paternity by claiming to have been “set up” by ex should be convicted of reckless litigation
In ruling no. 21882/2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a man who disavows his paternity by claiming that he was “set up” by his ex-partner for the sole purpose of evading his responsibilities as a father suffers a conviction for reckless litigation. In fact, the man claimed that his ex-partner, in order to get pregnant, had stolen a tube of semen from him, providing, however, no proof.
The Justices of legitimacy, in addition to affirming the man´s bad faith and the obvious absurdity of the aforementioned thesis, also affirmed that, in any case, the biological element is decisive, not requiring that there be a conscious will to procreate and that, therefore, his paternity was irrefutable.

Ideological falsehood for motorist providing another name.
According to the Supreme Court, a motorist who upon detection of a traffic violation by the police falsely provides the name of another person as the actual driver of the vehicle at the time of the offense, all for the purpose of evading the deduction of points from his or her driver’s license, risks conviction for ideological forgery. This was clarified by the Supreme Court in ruling no. 46326 of 2013, pointing out, moreover, that the false statement before was provided for the purpose of gaining an unfair profit to the detriment of others.