Unlawful Occupation and Compensation: Analysis of Order No. 19849 of 2024

The recent order no. 19849 of July 18, 2024, by the Court of Cassation addresses a crucial issue in civil law: the unlawful occupation of a property and its financial consequences for the rightful owner. In this article, we will analyze the content of this order, particularly the issue of compensation for damages and the burden of proof, providing a clear and accessible overview.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The Court of Cassation, with this order, reiterates a principle already established by jurisprudence, according to which the damage suffered by the owner due to unlawful occupation is presumed. This means that the owner does not have to prove the damage suffered in detail; rather, it is the occupier who must prove that the property did not have an anomalous yield. This principle is based on consolidated regulations, particularly Articles 1223 and 2056 of the Civil Code, which deal with damages and their liquidation, respectively.

Rebuttable Presumption and Burden of Proof

In general. In matters of unlawful occupation of a property, the damage suffered by the owner, being linked to the unavailability of a normally productive asset, is subject to a rebuttable presumption, which burdens the occupier with the contrary proof of the anomalous non-productivity of the property, and which must, in case of failure to overcome this presumption, be recognised in favour of the rightful owner.

This maxim highlights the centrality of the rebuttable presumption in civil law, shifting the burden of proof to the occupier. Therefore, the occupier must not only demonstrate that the occupied property is not productive, but must do so convincingly, otherwise the damage will be automatically recognised in favour of the owner. This approach simplifies procedures for the rightful owner, reducing the costs and time required to prove the damage suffered.

• Damage is presumed due to the normal productivity of the property.
• Burden of proof lies with the occupier.
• Automatic recognition of damages in case of failure to provide contrary proof.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

The practical implications of this order are significant for those involved in situations of unlawful occupation. Property owners can feel more protected, knowing that the legal system recognises a more easily accessible right to compensation. Furthermore, occupiers must be aware of the burden of proving the non-productivity of the property, which may prove to be complex and costly.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 19849 of 2024 represents an important step in protecting the rights of owners in cases of unlawful occupation. Through a clear definition of the burden of proof and the rebuttable presumption, the Court of Cassation provides effective legal tools to address such disputes. It is essential for owners and occupiers to be informed of these principles to effectively navigate potential legal disputes.