Analysis of Judgment No. 17038 of 2024: Theft in the Appurtenances of the Home and Constitutional Legitimacy

The recent judgment No. 17038 of April 4, 2024, filed on April 23, 2024, represents an important intervention by the Court of Cassation regarding theft in the appurtenances of the home. In particular, the Court addressed the issue of the lack of a specific mitigating factor for this type of theft, highlighting the implications related to the protection of individual security and property rights.

Context of the Judgment

The Court of Cassation, in its role as a judge of legitimacy, rejected the question of constitutional legitimacy raised concerning Article 624-bis of the Penal Code. This article does not explicitly provide for a specific mitigating factor for thefts occurring in the appurtenances of the home. This raised questions about the conformity of the norm with Article 3 of the Constitution, which guarantees the principle of equality.

In this regard, the Court stated that:

Theft in the appurtenances of the home - Omission of a specific mitigating factor - Violation of Article 3 of the Constitution - Question of constitutionality - Manifestly unfounded - Reasons. The question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 624-bis of the Penal Code, in relation to Article 3 of the Constitution, is manifestly unfounded due to the omission of a specific mitigating factor for cases where the theft occurred on property belonging to the home. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the protection needs for individual security, which the legislator intended to safeguard alongside property needs, also apply to the appurtenances of a home or a private dwelling, which are instrumental goods to the main one, aimed at satisfying the domestic life needs of the owner).

The Implications of the Judgment

The Court clarified that the appurtenances of the home, such as garages, basements, or gardens, must be considered on par with the main residence regarding legal protection. This position implies that the legislator has the duty to protect not only material goods but also the security of the person living in that house.

  • The judgment reaffirms the importance of individual security.
  • The appurtenances are viewed as extensions of the home that require protection.
  • Focus is placed on the domestic life needs of the owner.

This decision not only clarifies the position of the Court of Cassation but also provides food for thought on the possible intervention of the legislator to fill this legislative gap. It is evident that a revision of the norms could lead to greater equity and protection for citizens.

Conclusion

Judgment No. 17038 of 2024 represents a significant step in the issue of protecting homes and their appurtenances. Although the Court declared the question of constitutional legitimacy manifestly unfounded, the debate remains open on the need for legislative reform that could ensure more adequate protection for property rights and individual security. It is essential that the legislator considers these needs to guarantee effective and fair protection for all citizens.

Bianucci Law Firm