News Supreme Court rulings October 2020

1. The SS.UUs. On the difference between arbitrary exercise and extortion

The United Sections, in ruling no. 29541/2020 filed this Oct. 23 affirmed some principles of law on the subject of the relationship between extortion and arbitrary exercise of one’s reasons with violence to persons, stating that the distinction between the crime of extortion under Article 629 of the Criminal Code and that of which arbitrary exercise under Art. 393 Criminal Code should be identified in relation to the psychological element, to be ascertained according to the ordinary rules of evidence.

The Court further clarified that it is possible to configure the third party’s complicity in the crime of arbitrary exercise under Article 393 of the Criminal Code only in cases where the third party merely offers a contribution to the claim of the abuser without pursuing any different and further purpose; otherwise, if the competitors have acted in pursuit (also or only) of their own interest, they will be liable for complicity in extortion under Article 629 of the Criminal Code.

2. Eviction for those who harass neighbors

In the context of the lease agreement, harassment of neighbors may constitute an abuse of the leased property and a violation of Art. 1587 c.c., which lists among the obligations of the tenant that of taking delivery of the thing and observing the diligence of a good family man in using it for the use determined by the contract. Such conduct can lead to termination of the lease for default, resulting in eviction of the tenant.

This was the opinion of the Supreme Court, 3rd Civil Section, in Order No. 22860/2020, ruling in relation to the case of a property owner who had obtained the termination of the lease due to the behavior of the tenant, who had harassed neighbors by insulting them–even posting signs inside the apartment building insulting them–and smearing their doors with paint.

The Supreme Court also clarified that, for the purposes of termination, the misconduct may also consist of a single, serious incident, the relevance of which will always have to be assessed by the trial court.

3. Snatching cell phone from spouse is robbery

In ruling no. 26982/2020, the Supreme Court affirmed that the conduct of a person who steals a cell phone from his or her spouse constitutes the crime of robbery and not the crime of arbitrary exercise of one’s own reasons.

The Court recalled that in order to integrate the crime of exercising one’s own reasons, it is necessary that the perpetrator acts believing his claim to be legitimate or to protect a judicially contestable right of his, even if it does not exist, and that the claim corresponds to the object of the protection that the law provides, realizing the substitution of public for private protection that characterizes the case.

In the present case, which involved the taking away of a telephone from one’s wife, the Court specified that no protectable claim can be identified on the part of the husband who commits such an act.