By the judgement No. 8775 of April 3, 2024, the Supreme Court clarified that the buyer has the burden of proof of the pre-existence of defects with respect to the time of execution of the sale agreement.

​

With specific reference to the proof of promptness, by the judgment No. 25114 of August 23, 2023, the Supreme Court clarified that it requires not only the indication of a date of discovery of the defect, but, before that, the allegation of the type of defect, whether evident or hidden.

By the judgment No. 4210 of January 31, 2024, the Supreme Court confirmed that the corporations' liability for crimes committed in the interest or to the advantage of the corporation itself has a negligent basis and that the 'fault of organisation' is a constituting element of such liability. According to the Court, corporations could even have other procedures than the organisation and management models that, although differently  called, are demonstrably effective in preventing the crimes ruled by the Legislative Decree No. 231/2001.

The judgment of the Supreme Court No. 23049 of June 10, 2024, penal sec. IV, reiterates some fundamental principles on the protection of health and safety at work, with particular reference to the obligation of surveillance charged to the employer and having penal significance.

The judgement confirms the opportunity, especially in medium-sized and large companies, of an appropriate selection of the employees who, pursuant to art. 16 of Legislative Decree 81/2008, the employer can delegate suitable powers to.

On the basis of the judgement of the Veneto Administrative Regional Court No. 1428 of October 12, 2013, section IV, the necessity that the use of ordinance powers is well justified and anticipated by adequate investigations also applies to situations such as that of the presence of PFAS substances in the air, which is still characterised by a lack of evidence, scientific studies and ad hoc regulatory framework, since mere reference to the principle of precaution is not sufficient.

By decision No. 361 of January 10, 2023, the Supreme Court stated that a jurisdiction clause, provided for in general terms and conditions of sale contained in a separate document with respect to an agreement, is invalid if the said terms and conditions are not undersigned and the jurisdiction clause is not expressly recalled in the agreement itself.

The Supreme Court, by ordinance No. 16703 of June 17, 2024, stated that the right to divorce allowance cannot be recognised merely on the basis of the duration of the marriage and of the exclusive or prevalent care of the children by the ex-spouse. Moreover, the amount of the divorce allowance has to take into account the constitution of any new family unit.

According to the judgement of the Umbria Administrative Regional Court No. 12 of January 16, 2024, section I, mayors can lawfully exercise the power of contingent and urgent ordinance even with reference to dangerous situations that have been known for some time and not only in the event of new and unforeseeable events.

According to the judgement of the State Council No. 1110 of February 2, 2024, section IV, the innocent owner of a polluted site, who voluntary started the clean up procedure, cannot withdraw from such procedure.

This statement of the State Council is based on art. 2028 of the Civil Code on the so-called management of other people's affairs, according to which "whoever, without being obliged to, consciously takes on the management of another person's matter, is obliged to continue it and to complete it until the person concerned is able to do it by herself/himself".

By ordinance No. 16950 of June 19, 2024, the Supreme Court clarified that in divorce proceedings, in order to quantify the amount of the contribution owed by the parent for the maintenance of economically dependent children, it has to be applied the principle of proportionality, requiring a comparative assessment of the incomes of both parents and the evaluation of the children’s current needs and the standard of living enjoyed by them.

By the judgement No. 108 of January 3, 2024, section IV, the State Council provided a restrictive interpretation of the exemption of the user's liability, stating that "the contractor, who while building a road does not act with the required qualified diligence, which also includes the obligation to verify the consistency of the materials she/he uses, has to be held liable for unlawful waste disposal".

However, certifications specifically referring to the materials used, proving their consistency with the limits provided for by the law, could exclude the liability of the contractor.