Theft in the Dwelling of a Deceased Person: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Notion of Private Residence (Judgment no. 11759 of 2025)

Criminal law is a constantly evolving field, called upon to interpret norms in order to ensure maximum protection of legal interests, even in complex situations. A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, judgment no. 11759 of February 28, 2025 (filed on March 25, 2025), had to untangle an interpretative knot of great importance: can the dwelling of a deceased person still be considered a "private residence" for the purposes of the aggravated offense of theft in a dwelling?

The Case Brought to the Attention of the Supreme Court

The legal proceedings originated from an appeal against a decision by the Juvenile Court of Catania, dated December 6, 2024, which concerned the defendant T. P.M. S. G. The core of the issue revolved around the configurability of the aggravated theft offense, particularly under Article 624 bis of the Criminal Code, which punishes theft committed "in a building or other place intended in whole or in part for private residence or its appurtenances." The focal point was to establish whether the dwelling of a deceased person could fall within this notion, with all the consequences in terms of the seriousness of the offense and the applicable penalty.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: A Pillar of Protection

The Court of Cassation, with its ruling, provided a clear and detailed answer, rejecting the appeal and confirming an extensive and protective interpretation of the concept of private residence. The ruling, which represents the legal principle enunciated by the judgment, reads as follows:

In matters of theft, the dwelling of a deceased person also falls within the notion of private residence, as their death does not preclude the possibility that other individuals – heirs, close relatives, persons linked by emotional or friendly ties – may access the property to carry out private life activities.

This statement is of fundamental importance. The Supreme Court clarified that the death of the owner or tenant does not automatically deprive the property of its character as a "private residence." The reasoning is based on the fact that, even after death, the dwelling continues to be a place where activities that fall within the sphere of private life and privacy can take place. The property, in fact, does not become a mere empty container but retains its potential destination for hosting private life activities by those who, due to family, emotional, or legal ties (such as heirs), have the right or need to access it. Consider, for example, the management of the inheritance, the preservation of personal memories, or simply the custody of assets that still require protection. This interpretation is in line with the constitutional principles of protection of domicile, enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees its inviolability as an expression of personal freedom and privacy.

Practical Implications and Protection of Privacy

The consequences of this ruling are significant and strengthen the criminal protection of properties, even in situations of mourning. The Court recognized that the notion of "private residence" is not strictly linked to the physical and continuous presence of the owner but to its functional destination. This means that the actual possibility of access by certain individuals for the performance of "private life activities" is the determining factor.

Which individuals can access the property to carry out such acts? The ruling lists some of them:

• Heirs: those who succeed to the rights and duties of the deceased, including the management of assets.
• Close relatives: close family members who may need to access for emotional, organizational, or custodial reasons.
• Persons linked by emotional or friendly ties: in some cases, even close friends or partners may have a legitimate interest in accessing for private and legitimate purposes.

The Court of Cassation has, in effect, extended the protective scope of Article 624 bis of the Criminal Code, ensuring that the death of the owner does not become an opening for the commission of property crimes in a context that, despite the absence of the deceased, continues to be an expression of their private sphere and that of their successors.

Our Conclusions

Judgment no. 11759 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important jurisprudential clarification. It reaffirms the centrality of the protection of "private residence" as a place of expression of personality and privacy, extending its protection even when the owner is no longer alive. For heirs and relatives, this ruling offers greater protection against intrusions and thefts, reiterating that the memory and assets of the deceased continue to enjoy robust legal safeguarding. It is a strong signal: the law protects the private sphere and the assets connected to it, without interruption, even in the face of life's most definitive event.