News Supreme Court rulings March 2020

Termination of the effects of separation

In the case of personal separation between spouses, as a specification of the provisions under Art. 157 c.c., its effects cease only with a formal declaration or, failing that, with the fact of cohabitation.

The marriage bond, in fact, cannot be considered restored merely because of the repeated meetings and dating between the spouses, when the same are not aimed at an actual, concrete and real resumption of the relationship for the renewal of the conjugal society that takes place by means of the resumption of both material and spiritual marital relations.

Thus stated the Supreme Court in its July 26, 2019, order no. 20323.

Condominium expenses, joint and several liability of the new buyer

When buying a property, which is part of a condominium, there is joint and several liability between seller and buyer for condominium expenses.

However, it should be pointed out that the payment of condominium expenses owed by the seller is limited to only the two-year period prior to purchase.

This clarification stems from the application of Art. 63(2) of the implementing provisions of the Civil Code and not also Art. 1104 Civil Code since, pursuant to Art. 1139 c.c., the rules on communion in general also extend to condominium, but only in the absence of specific legislation.

Thus the Supreme Court, in ruling no. 10346/2019 settles and clarifies the question regarding the prevalence between the aforementioned standards.

Legitimacy of tiered rent for leases

In a ruling dated Sept. 26, 2019, the Supreme Court reaffirms the possibility for the parties to determine in the contract text a rent with increasing amount for residential and nonresidential properties.

A requirement for the validity of the covenant clause described above is its predetermination in the contractual text.

New in the pronouncement reported here, however, is the exclusion of the need to prove the connection of the prior rent increase to predetermined objective elements, other than monetary devaluation, capable of affecting the contractual synallagma.

In conclusion, the legitimacy of such a clause is ruled out only if it appears (from the contract or from extra-contractual elements) that with the aforementioned increase, the parties actually pursued the purpose of neutralizing the effects of monetary devaluation, circumventing the normative and imposed limits set forth in Art. 32 of Law no. 392/1978, thus incurring the penalty under Art. 79 of the same law.