Unauthorized Innovations on Maritime State Property: Commentary on Cassation Criminal Ruling No. 13576/2025

The criminal third sector of the Court of Cassation has once again ruled on the delicate matter of illegal works in maritime state property areas. With ruling no. 13576 of February 13, 2025 (filed April 8, 2025), the Supreme Court has reaffirmed and clarified the principle that the contravention provided for by art. 1161, para. 1, of the Navigation Code, normally classified as an instantaneous crime, can transform into a permanent crime whenever the illegal work deprives the community of public space or involves essential variations of the coastline. This is a clarification of great practical importance for tourist concessionaires, coastal municipalities, and port operators.

The Regulatory Framework: Art. 1161 of the Navigation Code and the Boundaries of State Property

Art. 1161 punishes "whoever without title arbitrarily occupies a space of the maritime state property or carries out unauthorized innovations." The rule is part of the broader system of protection of state property provided for by art. 822 et seq. of the Civil Code and art. 28-61 of the Navigation Code, which require authorization or concession for any use other than ordinary public use. The violation constitutes, as a rule, an administrative offense; however, it becomes a contravention when the occupation is without title or the works go beyond the scope of the issued title.

Ruling 13576/2025: From Instantaneous to Permanent Crime

The contravention of unauthorized innovations referred to in art. 1161, first paragraph, of the Navigation Code, which normally has the nature of an instantaneous crime because it is perfected with the completion of the work, can assume the nature of a permanent crime in cases where the works carried out involve essential variations or subtract a portion of maritime state property from the enjoyment of the community, with the consequent commencement of the statute of limitations from the moment the unlawful occupation of the area ceases or from the obtaining of a "supplementary" concession.

The Court, referring to established precedents (Cass. 6732/2019; 33105/2022), states that permanence exists if:

• the work determines an essential variation of the coastal territory;
• a part of the state property is subtracted from the community;
• the occupation persists over time, without authorization or beyond the limits of the title.

In these cases, the offense is not exhausted with the completion of the work but continues as long as the property is not returned to its original state or until a "supplementary" concession intervenes. The classification as a permanent crime shifts the dies a quo of the statute of limitations, which, pursuant to art. 157-159 of the Criminal Code, runs only from the cessation of the conduct. This means that, even years later, the Public Prosecutor can initiate criminal proceedings if the occupation continues.

The Issue of the Statute of Limitations and Procedural Impact

In the case examined, C. M. was accused of having expanded a bathing platform, extending it beyond the granted boundaries. The Review Court of Rome had considered the crime time-barred, classifying it as instantaneous. The Cassation, however, upheld the appeal of the Public Prosecutor P. F., emphasizing the permanence and declaring the defense argument unfounded.

The implications are significant:

• Increased criminal liability for concessionaires: the abuse can be prosecuted as long as the work remains in place.
• Possibility of real precautionary measures (preventive seizure) extended over time.
• Pressure towards restoration or regularization through supplementary concession pursuant to art. 24 of the Maritime Navigation Regulations.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 13576/2025 reiterates that, in matters of maritime state property, the public interest in the free use of the coastline prevails over any private initiative. Professionals assisting tourist operators or local authorities must carefully assess:

• the existence of essential variations in the project;
• the nature and extent of the actual occupation;
• the timelines for any regularization or removal to interrupt the permanence.

Proper management of authorizations, constant monitoring of granted boundaries, and timely compliance with the prescriptions of the maritime authority are more essential than ever today to avoid criminal consequences that, as the Cassation reminds us, may not be subject to a short statute of limitations.