Analysis of Judgment No. 39603 of 2024: Normative Continuity in the Matter of Damage to Cultural Heritage

The recent judgment No. 39603 of October 3, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the matter of damage to cultural and historical heritage. It clearly establishes normative continuity between different criminal offenses, contributing to the definition of the current legal framework for the protection of cultural heritage. This article aims to clarify the salient points of the judgment and its implications for the safeguarding of national cultural heritage.

The Regulatory Context of the Offense of Damage

The judgment analyzes three articles of the Criminal Code, highlighting how legislative changes over time have influenced the definition of criminal offenses. In particular, the following are examined:

• Article 635, paragraph two, no. 1: Offense of simple damage;
• Article 635, paragraph two, no. 3: Offense of aggravated damage to property of historical or artistic interest;
• Article 518-duodecies: Offense of destruction, deterioration, or defacement of cultural or landscape heritage.

The judgment clarifies that, despite normative changes, there is continuity between these criminal offenses, resulting in a phenomenon of "abrogatio sine abolitione." This means that the new provisions do not repeal the previous ones but coexist with them, keeping the related criminal liabilities alive.

Aggravated damage offense under Article 635, paragraph two, no. 3, of the Criminal Code - Autonomous damage offense under Article 635, paragraph two, no. 1, of the Criminal Code - Offense of destruction, deterioration, or defacement of cultural or landscape heritage under Article 518-duodecies of the Criminal Code - Normative continuity - Existence - Reasons - Exception - Indication. Normative continuity exists between the aggravated damage offense to property of historical or artistic interest, under Article 635, paragraph two, no. 3, of the Criminal Code, as amended by Article 3, paragraph 2, letter a), of Law July 15, 2009, no. 94, the autonomous damage offense, concerning the same property, under Article 635, paragraph two, no. 1, of the Criminal Code, as amended by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter l), of Legislative Decree January 15, 2016, no. 7, and the offense of destruction, deterioration, or defacement of cultural or landscape heritage, under Article 518-duodecies, first paragraph, of the Criminal Code, introduced by Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b), of Law March 9, 2022, no. 22, given the phenomenon of "abrogatio sine abolitione," except for the hypothesis of rendering cultural heritage unusable, which constitutes an entirely new criminal offense.

Implications for the Protection of Cultural Heritage

The implications of this judgment are significant. Normative continuity allows for greater protection of cultural heritage, as the various offenses can be charged cumulatively, increasing the degree of liability for those who damage such property. Furthermore, this ruling underscores the importance of constant vigilance and normative 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 heritage in Italy. It clarifies the interconnections between different criminal offenses and their normative 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.