Commentary on Judgment No. 10944 of 2024: Coactive Passage Easement and Absolute Interclusion

The judgment No. 10944 of April 23, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important insights regarding the delicate balance between property rights and the need to ensure access to intercluded lands. In this commentary, we will analyze the key points of the judgment, particularly the application of Article 1051, paragraph 4, of the Civil Code, which regulates coactive passage easements.

The Regulatory Context

Article 1051 of the Italian Civil Code governs predial easements, establishing the conditions under which a property owner of an intercluded land can request passage through another's property. The judgment in question clarifies that the exemption provided by paragraph 4 of the article does not apply in the case of absolute interclusion, where passage cannot be guaranteed without causing significant harm to the private life of the owners of the servient land.

Exemption under Article 1051, paragraph 4, c.c. - Applicability - Limits - Operation of the exemption in the presence of absolute interclusion - Exclusion - Foundation - Judgment of comparison between opposing interests - Criteria - Extent of intrusion into private life - Exclusivity of jurisdiction to the merits judge. In matters of coactive passage easements, the exemption provided by Article 1051, paragraph 4, c.c., in favor of houses, courtyards, gardens, and related yards - which operates only when the owner of the intercluded land has the possibility of choosing between multiple lands, through which to implement the passage, of which at least one is not constituted by houses or their appurtenances - does not apply when, respecting the exemption, the interclusion could not be eliminated, leading to absolute interclusion of the land having more prejudicial consequences compared to the inconvenience caused by passage through courtyards, yards, gardens, and similar; in this case, the judgment of comparison and balancing of opposing interests, which must take into account not only the industrial destination of the intercluded land but also the extent of intrusion into the private life of the owners of the servient land, where alternatives exist, can only remain exclusively within the jurisdiction of the merits judge.

Implications of the Judgment

The Court emphasized the importance of a judgment of comparison between opposing interests in situations of interclusion. This implies that, in evaluating the passage request, the judge must consider not only the necessity of the intercluded land to access a public road but also the impact that such passage would have on the private life of the owners of the servient land.

  • The possibility of choosing between multiple lands for passage is fundamental.
  • The assessment must take into account the destination of the involved lands.
  • The balancing of interests is the exclusive competence of the merits judge.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 10944 of 2024 represents an important reminder of the need for a balanced approach in disputes related to coactive passage easements. It highlights how the protection of private life and property rights must always be considered in an integrated manner. Legal practitioners and property owners involved in similar situations should pay particular attention to these dynamics to ensure fair and just management of access rights to lands.

Bianucci Law Firm