News Supreme Court rulings June 2015

Supreme Court: if the “grandfather” rides his bike drunk, he commits a crime

According to the Supreme Court of Cassation (see Judgment No. 17684 of 2015), an elderly person who rides his or her bicycle with a blood alcohol level of 0.9 g/l is liable to a criminal penalty for drunk driving.
To no avail were the old man’s grievances that the criminal discipline of drunk driving cannot be applied to the driving of non-motorized vehicles (and in this case, a bicycle).
The offense in question, the Supreme Court ruled, may well be committed through the riding of a bicycle, since the use of such a means is likely to interfere with the general conditions of regularity and safety of road traffic.

Supreme Court: balcony maintenance expenses also fall on the first floor owner

A recent judgment of the Civil Court of Cassation (Judgment No. 10209/2015) shows that it is legitimate to place the expense incurred by the condominium for the renovation of balconies and canopies also on the owner of the apartment located on the ground floor, if this is expressly provided for in the regulations.
In the aforementioned ruling, the Supreme Court in fact rejected the appeal brought by the owner of the apartment located on the first floor, having found that the resolution concerning the management and allocation of common expenses (including the above) was never challenged by any interested party.

Supreme Court: no ‘stress’ compensation for cancelled flight

The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 12088 of 2015, affirmed that a passenger who spends the night at the airport because of a flight canceled due to a pilot strike is not entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage related to the stress and inconvenience derived from missed departure.
Indeed, the Ermellini made it clear that the only reimbursement to which the aforementioned passenger would possibly be entitled is that related to the expenses incurred by him or her to cope with the emergency. That being clarified, continue the Justices of legitimacy, a passenger who procures for himself the “suffering” of an overnight stay at the airport, preferring to stay overnight there instead of in a hotel solely and exclusively for fear of not being able to board even the next morning, is not entitled to obtain a refund from the Airline.