Trespass and Building Invasion: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Concurrence of Offences with Judgment No. 17653/2025

Criminal law is a constantly evolving field, where jurisprudential interpretations play a fundamental role in defining the boundaries of criminal offences. A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 17653 of March 26, 2025 (filed on May 9, 2025), presided over by Dr. E. V. S. Scarlini and reported by Dr. A. M. G. Muscarella, fits precisely into this context, clarifying a crucial aspect concerning the relationship between the offence of trespass and that of arbitrary invasion of another's property. This decision, which partially annulled with referral a previous judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lecce, offers essential food for thought for understanding legal protections regarding property and individual liberty.

The Boundary Between Trespass and Building Invasion: A Regulatory Framework

To fully grasp the scope of the judgment under review, it is necessary to take a step back and analyse the two criminal offences involved: trespass, provided for by Article 614 of the Criminal Code, and invasion of land or buildings, governed by Article 633 of the Criminal Code. Although they may appear similar at first glance, these provisions protect distinct legal interests and contemplate different conduct.

• Art. 614 c.p. - Trespass: This article punishes anyone who enters another's dwelling, or another place of private residence, or their appurtenances, against the express or tacit will of the person entitled to exclude them, or who remains there against their will. The primary legal interest protected is the inviolability of the home, understood as the freedom to express one's personality without external interference in the place where private life unfolds.
• Art. 633 c.p. - Invasion of land or buildings: This provision penalises anyone who arbitrarily invades another's land or buildings, public or private, with the aim of occupying them or otherwise profiting from them. Here, the legal interest protected is mainly real estate assets and, indirectly, public order, by preventing abusive occupations that could alter the social structure and the peaceful enjoyment of assets.

The substantial difference lies in the legal interest protected: personal freedom and privacy in the first case, the right of ownership and public tranquillity in the second. It is precisely this distinction that guided the Supreme Court in its analysis.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation and the Principle of Concurrence of Offences

The heart of the Court of Cassation's decision is encapsulated in the following maxim, which unequivocally clarifies the issue:

The offence of trespass concurs with that of arbitrary invasion of another's property, as there is no relationship of speciality between them.

This statement is of fundamental importance. In criminal law, "concurrence of offences" occurs when a person commits multiple offences with one or more actions. The "relationship of speciality," on the other hand, occurs when one provision (special) contains all the elements of another provision (general), plus one or more additional elements that specify it. In such cases, pursuant to Article 15 of the Criminal Code, only the special provision applies. The Court of Cassation, in this case, categorically excluded the existence of a relationship of speciality between Article 614 c.p. and Article 633 c.p.

This means that, if conduct constitutes both offences simultaneously – for example, a person unlawfully entering a dwelling (trespass) with the intent to occupy it permanently (building invasion) – then both provisions, in concurrence, must be applied, not just one of them. The reason for this approach lies, as anticipated, in the diversity of the legal interests protected: trespass protects the individual's private sphere, while building invasion protects property in a broad sense. Since the protected interests are different, there can be no talk of speciality, and therefore the two provisions can coexist and be applied jointly to the same act or to distinct but connected acts committed by the same person.

Implications of Judgment No. 17653/2025

The Supreme Court's decision, which involved the defendant L. L., is not isolated but fits into an already established jurisprudential line, as evidenced by references to previous rulings (including No. 1044 of 2000, No. 20664 of 2017 of the United Sections, and No. 1235 of 2011 of the United Sections). It reiterates a consolidated principle: the plurality of legal interests affected by the same conduct (or by closely connected conduct) can lead to the prosecution of multiple offences in concurrence. For legal professionals, this judgment reinforces the need for careful analysis of the illicit conduct and the perpetrator's intentions, in order to correctly classify the offences and apply the most appropriate sanctions. This is not a mere duplication of penalties, but the correct response of the legal system to an offence that affects multiple interests worthy of protection.

Conclusions: A Beacon for Legal Protection

Judgment No. 17653/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important landmark for Italian jurisprudence on offences against persons and property. It definitively clarifies that trespass and building invasion can concur, emphasizing the diversity of the legal interests that these provisions aim to protect. For citizens, this ruling is a warning about the seriousness with which the legal system protects private spheres and the property of others. For lawyers and judges, it offers clear guidance in the interpretation and application of these offences, ensuring greater legal certainty and a criminal response more aligned with the complexity of illicit conduct. In an era where abusive occupations and intrusions into private spaces are unfortunately commonplace, clear and consistent jurisprudence is essential to preserve the pillars of civil coexistence and legality.