News Supreme Court rulings November 2014

Too much bleach and ammonia can be worth a criminal conviction

The Supreme Court in ruling no. 41726 of Oct. 7, 2014, affirmed that a person who uses bleach and ammonia excessively in condominium spaces for public use by harassing condominiums and strangers with toxic gas and vapor emissions is punishable for the offense under Article 674 of the Penal Code.
The court, in fact, while clarifying that cleanliness and hygiene are priorities in an apartment building, maintains that if they become a full-blown mania such that strong odors become permanent and apt to cause eye watering and respiratory problems, they may integrate the extremes of nuisance conduct resulting in the conviction of the agent for dangerous throwing of things.

It is a crime to spy on the phone calls of minor children.
According to the Supreme Court (Judgment No. 41192/2014), a father who records his minor children’s phone calls commits a crime: spying on their phone conversations can never be justified even by the exercise of the parent’s right/duty of supervision.
This is the opinion of the Justices of Legitimacy who convicted the separated man who had recorded conversations between his ex-spouse and his children of the crime under Article 617 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court pointed out that the rule violated by the children’s father protects the right to confidentiality of communication or conversation. It follows from this that the interlocutor has the right to exclude others from knowledge of the content of his or her conversation, and consistent with that right, the rule before punishes the conduct of one who instead takes cognizance of it without his or her consent.

“Fireflies” are not socially dangerous.
Prostitution is an activity contrary to public morality and decency, but not socially dangerous. This is clarified by the Supreme Court in its ruling no. n. 38701 of 2014.
That being the case, the Justices clarified that a woman who engages in prostitution on the street near civilian dwellings with “scandalous and soliciting” attitudes does not fall into the category of “socially dangerous” persons.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that for the purpose of issuing a deportation order with a mandatory travel warrant, it is essential that the behavior concretely carried out by the person is really detrimental to the legal goods protected by the system, the mere habitual performance of activities contrary to public morals and morality not being sufficient.