Analysis of Judgment No. 39603 of 2024: Legal Continuity in the Matter of Damaging Cultural Property
The recent judgment No. 39603 of October 3, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important insights into the matter of damaging cultural and historical property. It clearly establishes the legal continuity between different types of offenses, contributing to outlining the current legal framework regarding the protection of cultural property. This article aims to clarify the key points of the judgment and its implications for the protection of the national cultural heritage.
The Regulatory Context of the Offense of Damage
The judgment analyzes three articles of the Penal Code, highlighting how legislative changes over time have influenced the definition of offenses. In particular, the following are examined:
- Art. 635, second paragraph, no. 1: Simple damage offense;
- Art. 635, second paragraph, no. 3: Aggravated damage offense of property of historical or artistic interest;
- Art. 518-duodecies: Offense of destruction, deterioration or mutilation of cultural or landscape property.
The judgment clarifies that, despite the legislative changes, there is a continuity between these types of offenses, resulting in a phenomenon of "abrogatio sine abolitione." This means that the new norms do not repeal the previous ones, but rather coexist with them, keeping the related criminal responsibilities alive.
Aggravated damage offense under Art. 635, second paragraph, no. 3, Penal Code - Autonomous damage offense under Art. 635, second paragraph, no. 1, Penal Code - Offense of destruction, deterioration or mutilation of cultural or landscape property under Art. 518-duodecies, first paragraph, Penal Code - Legal continuity - Existence - Reasons - Exception - Indication. There exists legal continuity between the aggravated damage offense of things of historical or artistic interest, under Art. 635, second paragraph, no. 3, Penal Code, in the formulation consequent to the amendments made by Art. 3, second paragraph, letter a), Law of July 15, 2009, No. 94, the autonomous damage offense, concerning the same property, under Art. 635, second paragraph, no. 1, Penal Code, in the text following the amendments made by Art. 2, first paragraph, letter l), Legislative Decree of January 15, 2016, No. 7, and the offense of destruction, deterioration or mutilation of cultural or landscape property, under Art. 518-duodecies, first paragraph, Penal Code, introduced by Art. 1, first paragraph, letter b), Law of March 9, 2022, No. 22, occurring a phenomenon of "abrogatio sine abolitione," except for the case of the induced unserviceability of cultural property, which constitutes a completely new offense.
Implications for the Protection of Cultural Heritage
The implications of this judgment are significant. Legal continuity allows for greater protection of cultural property, as the various offenses can be cumulatively charged, increasing the degree of responsibility for those who damage such property. Furthermore, this ruling emphasizes the importance of constant vigilance and legislative updates to respond to current challenges in the field of cultural heritage protection.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment No. 39603 of 2024 represents a step forward in the protection of cultural property in Italy. It clarifies the interconnections between different types of offenses and their legal continuity, thus offering more robust legal tools for the defense of cultural heritage. It is essential that all stakeholders in the sector, from legislators to lawyers, are aware of these dynamics to ensure effective and adequate protection.
