Commentary on Judgment No. 8872 of 2024: Maritime State Property and Its Characteristics

Judgment No. 8872 of April 4, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the legal characteristics of maritime state property, particularly concerning the foreshore, beach, and seabed. This ruling is fundamental for understanding not only the meaning of these terms but also the legal consequences associated with their use and management.

Definitions of Foreshore, Beach, and Seabed

According to the judgment, the "foreshore" is defined as the portion of the shore in direct contact with the sea waters, which is subject to ordinary tidal surges. This implies that, in this area, any use other than maritime use is impossible. Conversely, the "beach" includes not only the stretches of land near the sea affected by extraordinary tidal surges but also the "seabed," meaning the stretch of land exposed as a result of the natural retreat of the waters.

Foreshore, beach, and seabed - Notions and characteristics - Consequences - Natural inclusion of the foreshore and beach in maritime state property. While the foreshore is that portion of the shore in direct contact with the sea waters, by which it remains covered due to ordinary tidal surges, consequently making any use other than maritime use impossible, the beach includes not only those stretches of land near the sea, subject to extraordinary tidal surges, but also the seabed, i.e., that stretch which is left exposed by the natural retreat of the waters; it follows that the foreshore and the beach are naturally and necessarily included in maritime state property, while for the seabed, the potential suitability for realizing public uses of the sea is necessary.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

The judgment emphasizes that the natural inclusion of the foreshore and beach in maritime state property has significant consequences for their management and use. In fact, these areas are subject to specific regulations that govern their use and protection. In particular, the Civil Code (Art. 822) and the Navigation Code (Arts. 28, 32, and 35) establish the essential provisions concerning state-owned property.

It is important to note that, while the foreshore and beach are automatically included in state property, an additional assessment is necessary for the seabed, as it must demonstrate the potential suitability to facilitate public uses of the sea. This distinction is crucial for public administrations and for entrepreneurs wishing to invest in activities on these areas.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 8872 of 2024 provides a clear legal framework regarding the concepts of foreshore, beach, and seabed within maritime state property. These definitions not only clarify the rights and duties related to the management of these areas but also emphasize the importance of a correct interpretation of current regulations. It is essential for those operating in the sector to understand the legal implications of these areas to avoid disputes and ensure responsible and sustainable use of our natural heritage.