News Supreme Court rulings March 2013

The owner of the upper floor cannot close the staircase with a door

The Supreme Court in ruling no. 4419 of Feb. 21, 2013, ruled that within a condominium structure consisting of only two floors, a condominium owner who lives on the top floor may not close the part of the staircase that provides access to the floor he owns exclusively with a door.
The Court ruled that the outdoor condominium staircase that connects, as in the present case, the two floors belonging to different owners cannot be included among the accessories of the building owned exclusively by the individual.

The Court, moreover, stressing that the condominium staircase is a common part of the condominium if the contrary is not apparent from a title that justifies the individual’s ownership, ruled that the condominium owner cannot exclude other condominium owners from common ownership merely because the latter never use the part of the staircase that gives access to his or her floor.

Condominium, installation of gates does not require a qualified majority vote
In ruling no. 4340/2013 the Supreme Court ruled that the installation of gates in the condominium does not require a qualified majority. The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is legitimately within the powers of the condominium assembly to install gates to regulate transit, pedestrian and vehicular, for the purpose of preventing outsiders from entering the condominium area.
The Court clarified that an assembly resolution concerning the closing of an access area to the condominium building with one or more gates does not require a qualified majority of two-thirds of the value of the entire building, because it does not concern an innovation for which a majority of two-thirds of the value of the entire building is required, but concerns the use and regulation of the common thing, not affecting the essence of the common good or altering its purpose.

In politics, calling a politician a “dilettante allo sbaglio” is not defamation

The Supreme Court in ruling 7421/2013 clarified that declaring that a politician is “an amateur at the drop of a hat, a political tourist, a political juggler” does not constitute the crime of libel in the press.
The Supreme Court has ruled, in fact, that such judgments, although “biting,” are lawful because they do not affect the dignity of the person and do not exceed the limits of continence, but only question “professionalism in the exercise of a political role” and, therefore, there is no offense. The supreme judges also made it clear that the use of the aforementioned expressions were logically deemed to be the result of political criticism rather than an attack on the moral sphere of the offended.