Judgment No. 9626 of 2024: Reflections on Discontinuous Easements and Possession

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 9626 of April 10, 2024, provides interesting insights regarding the management of discontinuous easements. The ruling, which rejected B.'s appeal against I., clarifies some fundamental aspects concerning the configuration of easement possession, particularly in relation to sporadic exercise.

The Legal Context of Discontinuous Easements

Discontinuous easements are real rights that allow the holder to benefit from someone else's property in a non-continuous manner. The judgment in question follows a well-established case law that recognizes that the sporadic exercise of such rights does not prevent the configurability of possession. This is particularly relevant, as there is often a tendency to confuse sporadic use with a lack of possession.

  • Definition of discontinuous easements
  • Importance of possession in the configuration of easements
  • Relevant legal references, such as Articles 1027, 1140, and 1158 of the Civil Code

Analysis of the Judgment's Maxim

Discontinuous easements - Possession - Sporadic exercise - Configurability - Existence - Conditions. Regarding discontinuous easements, sporadic exercise does not hinder the configurability of possession, which must be determined in relation to the peculiar characteristics and needs of the dominant estate; therefore, where there are no clear external signs aimed at manifesting the animus derelinquendi, the factual relationship established by the possessor with the servient estate does not cease due to non-continuous use when it can be assumed that the property has remained in the virtual availability of the possessor.

This maxim highlights that sporadic use of the easement does not automatically imply a waiver of possession. The configurability of possession must be assessed based on the specific needs of the dominant estate, and the absence of external signs indicating an intention to abandon possession is crucial for its existence. The ruling thus reiterates the necessity of a contextual and factual analysis to understand the actual legal situation.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 9626 of 2024 provides an important confirmation of principles already established by case law, emphasizing that the sporadic exercise of an easement does not prejudice possession. This is a fundamental element for legal professionals, as it clarifies the dynamics between property rights and real easement rights. Understanding these distinctions is essential for the proper management and protection of clients' rights, especially in areas of conflict or litigation.

Bianucci Law Firm