News Supreme Court rulings November 2012

People who walk do not pay elevator maintenance fees.
The Supreme Court of Cassation ordered in ruling no. 15638/2012, that the ordinary expenses of the condominium elevator are not borne by the person who, living on the ground floor, does not use this means.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court noted that “minor” condominium expenses necessary to remedy the wear and tear on the common elevator, resulting from use by condominiums, and performed to improve its enjoyment by condominiums, are among those of ordinary administration.
The Court clarifies that the condominium owner, who owns an apartment on the ground floor, is only chargeable with extraordinary expenses in the scope of elevator maintenance.

Charge separation to cheating husband traveling with a friend.
The Supreme Court in ruling no. 18175 of 2012 upheld the separation charge in the hands of the husband who on a business trip took with him a “friend” who, at the end of his marriage, became his partner.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court, notes how travel becomes evidence of adultery if, over time, what appeared to be an “occasional” traveling companion becomes the partner in an affair.
The court, in fact, points out how the aforementioned trip was apt to highlight the husband’s unfaithful behavior leading, necessarily, to the compromise of the marriage. It is also ruled by the Court that the violation of the obligation of marital fidelity is particularly serious if implemented with a stable extramarital relationship.

The ex-husband must continue to provide his wife with jewelry and designer clothes.
In ruling no. 1612 of Jan. 24, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the ex-husband must continue to provide his wife with jewelry and designer clothes, even after separation, if the couple enjoyed a high standard of living during the marriage.
The court upheld the amount of €7,500, as maintenance allowance, to be paid to the ex-wife having established that the latter appears to have no income and is unable to obtain it as she is 59 years old.
In ordering this, the Court states that the high standard of living enjoyed during the marriage can be inferred from the husband’s substantial assets, as well as the couple’s overall lifestyle and the woman’s possession of designer clothes and jewelry, and must, necessarily, be guaranteed by the person who is obligated to pay the divorce allowance.