Trespassing and Building Invasion: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Concurrence of Crimes with Ruling No. 17653/2025

Criminal law is a constantly evolving field, where jurisprudential interpretations play a fundamental role in defining the boundaries of criminal offenses. A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 17653 of March 26, 2025 (filed on May 9, 2025), presided over by Dr. E. V. S. Scarlini and reported by Dr. A. M. G. Muscarella, fits precisely into this context, clarifying a crucial aspect concerning the relationship between the crime of trespassing and that of arbitrary invasion of property. This decision, which partially annulled with referral a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal of Lecce, offers essential food for thought for understanding legal protections regarding property and individual liberty.

The Boundary Between Trespassing and Building Invasion: A Regulatory Framework

To fully grasp the scope of the ruling under examination, it is necessary to take a step back and analyze the two criminal offenses involved: trespassing, provided for by Article 614 of the Italian Penal Code, and invasion of land or buildings, governed by Article 633 of the Italian Penal Code. Although they may appear similar at first glance, these provisions protect distinct legal interests and contemplate different conduct.

• Art. 614 of the Italian Penal Code - Trespassing: This article punishes anyone who enters another's dwelling, or another place of private residence, or their appurtenances, against the express or tacit will of the person entitled to exclude them, or who remains there against their will. The primary legal interest protected is the inviolability of the home, understood as the freedom to express one's personality without external interference in the place where private life unfolds.
• Art. 633 of the Italian Penal Code - Invasion of land or buildings: This provision penalizes anyone who arbitrarily invades another's land or buildings, public or private, with the aim of occupying them or otherwise profiting from them. Here, the legal interest protected is primarily real estate assets and, indirectly, public order, by preventing illegal occupations that could alter the social fabric and the peaceful enjoyment of property.

The substantial difference lies in the legal interest protected: personal freedom and privacy in the first case, the right to property and public tranquility in the second. It is precisely this distinction that guided the Supreme Court in its analysis.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation and the Principle of Concurrence of Crimes

The core of the Court of Cassation's decision is encapsulated in the following maxim, which unequivocally clarifies the issue:

The crime of trespassing concurs with that of arbitrary invasion of property, as there is no relationship of specialty between them.

This statement is of fundamental importance. In criminal law, "concurrence of crimes" occurs when a person commits multiple crimes with one or more actions. A "relationship of specialty," on the other hand, exists when one norm (special) contains all the elements of another norm (general), plus one or more additional elements that specify it. In such cases, according to Article 15 of the Italian Penal Code, only the special norm applies. The Court of Cassation, in this case, categorically excluded the existence of a relationship of specialty between Article 614 of the Italian Penal Code and Article 633 of the Italian Penal Code.

This means that, if conduct simultaneously constitutes the elements of both crimes – for example, a person who unlawfully enters a dwelling (trespassing) with the intent to occupy it permanently (building invasion) – then both norms, in concurrence, must be applied, not just one of them. The reason for this orientation lies, as anticipated, in the diversity of the legal interests protected: trespassing protects the individual's private sphere, while building invasion protects property in a broad sense. Since the protected interests are different, there can be no talk of specialty, and therefore the two norms can coexist and be applied jointly to the same act or to distinct but connected acts committed by the same person.

Implications of Ruling No. 17653/2025

The Supreme Court's decision, which involved the defendant L. L., is not isolated but follows a pre-existing jurisprudential path, as evidenced by references to previous rulings (including No. 1044 of 2000, No. 20664 of 2017 of the United Sections, and No. 1235 of 2011 of the United Sections). It reiterates a consolidated principle: the plurality of legal interests affected by the same conduct (or by closely connected conduct) can lead to the contestation of multiple crimes in concurrence. For legal professionals, this ruling reinforces the need for careful analysis of the illicit conduct and the perpetrator's intentions, in order to correctly qualify the crimes and apply the most appropriate sanctions. This is not a mere duplication of penalties, but the correct response of the legal system to an offense that affects multiple interests worthy of protection.

Conclusions: A Beacon for Legal Protection

Ruling No. 17653/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important milestone for Italian jurisprudence regarding crimes against persons and property. It definitively clarifies that trespassing and building invasion can concur, emphasizing the diversity of the legal interests that these provisions aim to protect. For citizens, this ruling serves as a warning about the seriousness with which the legal system protects private spheres and the property of others. For lawyers and judges, it offers clear guidance in the interpretation and application of these offenses, ensuring greater legal certainty and a criminal response more aligned with the complexity of illicit conduct. In an era where illegal occupations and intrusions into private spaces are unfortunately commonplace, clear and consistent jurisprudence is essential to preserve the pillars of civil coexistence and legality.