Abusive Occupation of Maritime State Property: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Limits of Supplementary Concessions (Judgment no. 16684/2025)

Maritime state property, with its beaches, coastlines, and bodies of water, represents an invaluable heritage for our country, subject to rigorous legal protection. Its management is regulated by precise rules aimed at ensuring public use and conservation. However, it is not uncommon to encounter situations of abusive occupation, a phenomenon that Italian jurisprudence is increasingly addressing. A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, judgment no. 16684 of April 3, 2025, offers a fundamental clarification on the limits and effectiveness of the so-called "supplementary concession" in relation to the crime of abusive occupation of state-owned land. This decision is crucial for understanding the responsibilities of those who manage or intend to use state-owned areas and to avoid unpleasant legal consequences.

Maritime State Property and Abusive Occupation: An Essential Regulatory Framework

Maritime state property, as provided by Article 28 of the Navigation Code, consists of the foreshore, the beach, ports, roadsteads, and all coastal areas necessary for navigation. These assets are inalienable and imprescriptible, intended for public use. The occupation of these areas without the necessary authorization constitutes a serious offense, both administratively and, in certain circumstances, criminally. Article 1161 of the Navigation Code, in fact, penalizes the abusive occupation of maritime state-owned space and the failure to comply with the provisions contained in the concession title. The protection of state property is therefore a cornerstone of our legal system, aimed at preserving a collective asset from improper or illegitimate uses.

Supplementary Concession: What It Is and When It Can Be Granted?

Within the scope of state property concessions, there is a particular form of authorization defined as a "supplementary concession," regulated by Article 24 of Presidential Decree no. 328 of February 15, 1952 (Regulations for the execution of the Navigation Code). This type of concession is not a general waiver for any abuse, but is intended for exceptional situations. Its conditions for issuance are stringent:

• It must be functional to the profitable use of the already granted property;
• It must have a minimum quantitative consistency;
• It must not concern an additional property, but only an extension or a marginal modification of the one already subject to concession, provided it is objectively and not merely subjectively linked to the first.

The objective of this instrument is to allow small adjustments or integrations to existing concessions, but always in compliance with the principles of protecting state property and competition. The Cassation Court's judgment no. 16684/2025, with G. L. as rapporteur, specifically addressed the effectiveness of such a concession when it intervenes in a context of an already ascertained offense.

Sanatory Effectiveness Denied: The Core of Judgment 16684/2025

The case examined by the Court of Cassation involved L. D. N. as the defendant, whose conduct of abusive occupation had been ascertained. Subsequently to this ascertainment, a supplementary concession was requested and issued. The central issue was to determine whether this provision could retroactively "cure" the already committed criminal offense. The Court, presided over by L. R., responded unequivocally, partially annulling without referral the judgment of the Court of Foggia of February 1, 2024.

In matters of protection of maritime state property, the supplementary concession referred to in art. 24 of Presidential Decree no. 328 of February 15, 1952, which can only be granted in exceptional situations and provided that the extension of the original provision is objectively functional to the profitable use of the property, has minimal quantitative consistency, and does not concern an additional property only subjectively linked to the first, has no sanatory effect if requested and issued after the ascertainment of the conduct constituting the crime of abusive occupation of state-owned land, nor does it allow the beneficiary to invoke their good faith.

This maxim is of fundamental importance. The Cassation Court reiterated that a supplementary concession cannot serve as a shield or justification for a crime already committed. The act of abusive occupation, once ascertained, remains so, and a subsequent authorization cannot erase its criminal relevance. This means that the post-mortem issuance of a supplementary concession has no retroactive effect on a criminal level, nor can it be invoked by the beneficiary to support their "good faith." Good faith, in fact, presupposes an excusable ignorance of infringing another's right, but in the context of occupying state property, the absence of a valid title at the time of occupation makes such an invocation inadmissible, especially when the offense has already been ascertained. Jurisprudence has always maintained a firm stance on this point, as evidenced by references to previous maxims cited in the judgment itself (e.g., No. 33105 of 2022 Rv. 283418-01).

Conclusions: Responsibility and Prevention in the Use of State Property

Judgment no. 16684 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation further strengthens the protection of maritime state property and underscores the importance of always acting in full compliance with current regulations. For those operating in sectors that involve the use of state-owned areas, it is essential to verify the full regularity of their concessions and ensure that any extension or modification is pre-authorized. A proactive approach and preventive legal advice become indispensable tools to avoid incurring criminal and administrative sanctions. This ruling serves as a warning: abusive occupation cannot be retroactively cured by a supplementary concession, and good faith is not a valid attenuating circumstance in the presence of an already ascertained offense. Prevention is the best strategy to ensure legality and sustainability in the use of our precious state resources.