Arbitrary exercise of one's own rights: Cassation no. 11490/2025 on change of destination as "violence against property"

The everyday act of closing a passage, installing a post, or moving a fence can turn into a criminally relevant offense. This is reminded by the Court of Cassation, VI Criminal Section, with judgment of January 28, 2025, filed March 21, 2025, no. 11490, confirming the conviction of V. L. for arbitrary exercise of one's own rights (Art. 392 of the Italian Criminal Code). The case provides an opportunity to clarify when "violence against property" occurs even without material damage and what precautions to take to avoid crossing the line into illegality.

The Facts and the Procedural Path

The defendant, convinced he was protecting a right of way, had fixed a metal grate on an existing fence, preventing the other party from accessing their property by vehicle. The Tribunal first, and then the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, found him guilty: the Cassation rejected the appeal, reaffirming the line of consistent precedents (Cass. 35876/2019, 4373/2009).

"Violence Against Property" Between Theory and Practice

Art. 392 of the Italian Criminal Code punishes those who take justice into their own hands through violence. Until now, jurisprudence has oscillated between:

• a materialistic interpretation, anchored to physical damage to the property;
• a functional reading, which considers the impact on the rights of others, even without deterioration.

The judgment decidedly embraces the second option: material damage is not required; a change in destination that makes the exercise of the victim's right more burdensome or impossible is sufficient. This is the same logic already put forward by the European Court of Human Rights when protecting the peaceful enjoyment of property (Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR).

In the context of the arbitrary exercise of one's own rights, violence against property can also consist of a change in the intended use of the property, which does not cause material damage, provided that the modification has a concrete impact on the offended person's interest in maintaining the state of the places unaltered, appreciably hindering the exercise of their right. (In this case, the Court found the crime to be constituted by the defendant's conduct, who, by affixing a metal grate to an existing fence, had prevented the other party from accessing their property by vehicle).

The maxim, seemingly technical, clarifies that what matters is the obstructive effect: even "reversible" or minor interventions can constitute violence.

Practical Implications for Businesses and Individuals

The principle has concrete repercussions:

• Condominiums and neighbor disputes: those who change the destination of a courtyard, a parking area, or a common space risk criminal charges if they do not obtain prior consent or a judicial order.
• Holders of rights of way: anyone who installs gates, barriers, or chains without an agreement with the holder of the right of way incurs Art. 392 of the Italian Criminal Code, even if they provide keys.
• Agricultural or construction entrepreneurs: temporary works on adjacent land (e.g., terracing, piping) must be authorized in advance or at least communicated.

Preventive protection remains the main path: urgent proceedings under Art. 700 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, a report of new work, or an appeal to the Justice of the Peace avoid criminal risk and keep the conflict in civil court.

Conclusions

Cassation no. 11490/2025 confirms a now consolidated trend: "violence against property" is not measured with a hammer but with the capacity to compress the rights of others. The message is clear: even minimal interventions, if they affect the status quo of others' property, require judicial review or the consent of the parties. Acting otherwise exposes one to criminal liability, as well as civil. In an era of increasing real estate litigation, prudence – and consulting a lawyer – is worth more than any lock.