Annulment of the Separation Agreement: Moral Violence as a Defect of Consent
The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation (Cass. civ., Sec. I, Ord., No. 4440 of 20/02/2024) has raised significant questions regarding the annulment of separation agreements due to defects in consent, particularly when it comes to moral violence. In this article, we will analyze the details of this ruling, focusing on the fundamental legal principles and the practical implications for the parties involved.
The Case of A.A. against B.B.
The case at hand concerns A.A., who requested the annulment of the consensual separation agreement signed in 2011, claiming to have done so under threat and psychological coercion. A.A. highlighted a context of moral violence and intimidation by his wife B.B.'s family, which allegedly affected his freedom of self-determination.
Moral violence, as a defect nullifying consent, requires that the threat be of such nature as to impress a reasonable person and cause fear of unjust and significant harm.
Relevant Legal Principles
The Court of Cassation reiterated some fundamental principles regarding the annulment of contracts due to defects in will, particularly:
- It is necessary for the violence to be directed at extorting the consent of the passive subject.
- The threat must be of such nature as to impact the freedom of self-determination of the subject.
- The socio-cultural context and the position of the parties must be considered in the assessment of moral violence.
In the specific case, the Court found that the Court of Appeal of Bari did not adequately consider the testimonial evidence and the circumstances that could have justified the annulment of the agreement. It was therefore decided to overturn the ruling and refer the case for a new assessment.
Conclusions
This ruling of the Court of Cassation represents an important opportunity to clarify the role of moral violence in separation agreements. It highlights the necessity for a thorough examination of the evidence and circumstances that may influence the will of the parties. The decision to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal of Bari in a different composition offers a new chance to review the evidence and ensure a fair application of the law.
