The Court of Cassation on the Prescription of Easements: Judgment no. 19498 of 2024

Judgment no. 19498 of July 16, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers important food for thought on the prescription of predial easements. This decision clarified that a notice of enforcement is not an act capable of interrupting the prescription period established by Article 1073 of the Civil Code, raising questions about the effectiveness of such acts in the context of protecting real rights.

The Case and the Court's Decision

The case involved D. (O.) and F. (K.), with the Court of Appeal of Brescia having initially held that a notice of enforcement could interrupt the prescription of a non-building easement. However, the Court of Cassation overturned this judgment, stating that the notice of enforcement, being merely a demand for compliance, does not initiate any legal proceeding or enforcement process.

Easements - Prescription of the right - Notice of enforcement - Suitability to interrupt the non-use of the right - Exclusion - Basis - Case. In relation to the extinction by prescription of predial easements, a notice of enforcement is not an act suitable for interrupting the twenty-year period established by Article 1073 of the Civil Code, as it only contains a demand for compliance and is not aimed at initiating either a legal proceeding or an enforcement process. (In this specific case, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's judgment which had considered the notification of a notice of enforcement for a demolition order, issued after the aforementioned easement had been established by a final judgment, as an act suitable for interrupting the prescription of the non-building easement).

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for individuals involved in disputes concerning predial easements. In particular, it emphasizes that notices of enforcement cannot be used as tools to interrupt the prescription of the right. Therefore, it is crucial for easement holders to be aware of the appropriate methods for protecting their rights, avoiding reliance on acts that do not produce the desired legal effect.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 19498 of 2024 represents an important reference point in Italian jurisprudence, clarifying a crucial aspect of the regulation of predial easements. It is essential for legal professionals and private citizens to understand these dynamics for the correct management of real rights and adequate protection of the interests involved.