News Supreme Court rulings September 2021

United Sections on the legality of crucifixes in classrooms

The United Sections intervened, in ruling no. 24414 of Sept. 9, 2021, on the long-standing issue of the presence of crucifixes in classrooms, stating that Article 118 of Royal Decree No. 965 of 1924, which includes the crucifix among compulsory school furnishings, must be interpreted in accordance with the principle of secularism of the state and the preservation of religious freedom, positive and negative.

Therefore, the decision to display the crucifix in the classroom represents a choice that is up to the school community, at the outcome of an evaluation that is the result of respect for the beliefs of all the members of the same community, seeking a “reasonable accommodation” between any disagreeing positions, but cannot in any way constitute an authoritatively imposed obligation.

Postal savings bonds: each surviving joint holder can collect the full amount

The First Civil Section, in ruling no. 24639 of Sept. 13, 2021, ruled that in the event of the death of one of the holders of a postal interest-bearing bond, in the presence of the “equal redemption right” clause, each of the surviving holders is entitled to independently obtain redemption of the entire amount.

The Supreme Court’s intervention clarified that, in the case of jointly held interest-bearing bonds, the rules under Art. 187 Presidential Decree no. 256 of 1989 for postal savings bonds, which makes the repayment of the balance conditional on the receipt of all claimants, as this provision would be in conflict with the “on-demand repayment” regime that characterizes such savings bonds.

The purpose of the equal redemption power clause is not, in fact, to protect any heirs of the deceased co-owner, who, if excluded, will, in any case, be able to assert their claim against the co-owner who collected the entire claim.

The operator has an obligation to report abnormal consumption

By order no. 24904 of Sept. 15, 2021, the Third Civil Section of the Supreme Court clarified that the integrated water service operator has the burden of informing the user of any abnormal consumption, resulting in the user’s right to compensation for damages in case of omission.

For this purpose, the Ermellini clarified that express reporting is required, as merely sending a commercial invoice indicating recorded consumption without any explicit indication as to their anomalous nature is not sufficient.

The Court also pointed out that since this burden is part of the information obligations placed on the operator, any failure on the part of the user to verify the regular operation of the system and the meter, as well as to take a self-reading, does not, in itself, exclude the right to compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the failure to report.