Judgment No. 22032 of 2024: Interruption of Usucapion Through Claims Before Administrative Judge

Judgment No. 22032 of August 5, 2024, by the Court of Cassation, presided over by L. O., represents an important clarification regarding usucapion and interruption of possession. In particular, the Court has established that ancillary judicial claims, addressed to a judicial authority other than the civil judge, can have an interrupting effect on possession, provided they are endowed with the necessary potestas. This principle offers new possibilities for possessors, especially in situations of litigation involving illegal constructions.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

Pursuant to Articles 1165 and 2943 of the Civil Code, acts that interrupt possession must be strictly provided for and can include acts of a recovery and demolition nature. The Court of Cassation, in the case at hand, overturned a judgment by the Court of Appeal of Rome which denied the interrupting effect to a claim for the demolition of an illegal structure, filed before the administrative judge. This has raised questions about the conditions necessary for such claims to effectively interrupt usucapion.

Strictness of Interrupting Acts - Ancillary Judicial Claims Addressed to Judicial Authority Other Than Civil Judge - Suitability for Interruption - Existence - Conditions - Factual Situation. In matters of usucapion, acts interrupting possession, of a recovery and demolition nature and strictly provided for by the combined provisions of Articles 1165 and 2943 of the Civil Code, may also consist of ancillary judicial claims to others, addressed to a judicial authority other than the ordinary judge, provided it is endowed with the necessary "potestas". (In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment that had denied the interrupting effect to a claim for an order to demolish an illegal structure, filed before the administrative judge and ancillary to the claim for the ascertainment of the illegality of the construction).

Practical Implications for Possessors

The decision of the Court of Cassation has significant implications for possessors who find themselves facing litigation related to illegal constructions. Indeed, thanks to this judgment, it becomes clear that legal actions taken in administrative contexts can have a direct impact on possession and, consequently, on usucapion. This offers possessors greater flexibility in choosing the legal actions to undertake to protect their rights.

• Possibility to interrupt usucapion through ancillary claims.
• Recognition of the validity of judicial authorities other than the civil judge.
• Clarification on the potestas requirements necessary for interrupting claims.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 22032 of 2024 represents a step forward in understanding the strictness of interrupting acts within the scope of usucapion. Thanks to this ruling, possessors can consider new legal strategies to protect their rights, with a clear opening towards the use of ancillary judicial claims also in the administrative sphere. This strengthens the protection of possession rights and offers new tools to address the legal challenges related to usucapion.