Illegal Occupation and Compensation: Analysis of Ordinance No. 19849 of 2024

The recent ordinance no. 19849 of July 18, 2024, from the Court of Cassation addresses a crucial issue in civil law: the illegal occupation of a property and the financial consequences for the legitimate owner. In this article, we will analyze the content of this ordinance, particularly focusing on the theme of damage compensation and the burden of proof, providing a clear and accessible framework.

The Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The Court of Cassation, with this ordinance, reaffirms a principle already established by jurisprudence, according to which the damage suffered by the owner due to illegal occupation is presumed. This means that the owner does not have to detail the damage suffered; rather, it is the occupant who must prove that the property has not experienced abnormal fruitfulness. This principle is based on established regulations, particularly the Civil Code in articles 1223 and 2056, which deal respectively with damage and its assessment.

The Relative Presumption and the Burden of Proof

In general. In the context of illegal occupation of a property, the damage suffered by the owner, being linked to the unavailability of a normally fruitful asset, is subject to a relative presumption, which places the burden of proof on the occupant to demonstrate the abnormal unfruitfulness of the property, and in case of failure to overcome this presumption, the damage must be recognized in favor of the legitimate owner.

This maxim highlights the centrality of the relative presumption in civil law, shifting the burden of proof onto the occupant. Therefore, the occupant must not only prove that the occupied property is not fruitful, but must do so convincingly; otherwise, the damage will be automatically recognized in favor of the owner. This approach simplifies the procedures for the legitimate owner, reducing the costs and time required to demonstrate the damage suffered.

  • The damage is deemed presumed for the normal fruitfulness of the property.
  • Burden of proof lies with the occupant.
  • Automatic recognition of damage in case of failure to provide counter-proof.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The practical implications of this ordinance are significant for those in situations of illegal occupation. Property owners may feel more protected, knowing that the legal system recognizes a more accessible right to compensation. Furthermore, occupants must be aware of the burden to prove the unfruitfulness of the property, which could be complex and burdensome.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ordinance no. 19849 of 2024 represents an important step in protecting the rights of owners in cases of illegal occupation. Through a clear definition of the burden of proof and the relative presumption, the Court of Cassation provides effective legal tools to address such disputes. It is essential for both owners and occupants to be informed of these principles to effectively navigate potential legal disputes.

Bianucci Law Firm