Gian Luigi and Morena, he, a 50-year-old from Milan, she, a 45-year-old from Crema, ended up on trial on charges of housebreaking for having entertained themselves in an apartment owned by the municipality of Pandino against the will of the mayor pro-tempore Piergiacomo Bonaventi and for not having complied with the municipal provision issued on May 19, 2020 which required them to leave the house by May 31 of that same year. At the deadline, in fact, the couple had not returned the keys and had continued to live illegally in the building.
But the judge has them acquitted both as at the time we were in the midst of the Covid health emergency and there was an obligation to stay in our homes. In those days, moreover, the “Cura Italia” decree with the aim of reducing the economic-social effects of the pandemic which provided for the suspension of the provisions for the release of properties, even for non-residential use, until 31 December 2020, as they were in force on Milleproroghe Decree and the block on evictions.
Gian Luigi, who was unemployed, and his partner Morena were guests without the mayor’s knowledge in the council house assigned to his brother. On May 13, 2020, the brother took his own life and the couple remained living in the municipal building. Only following the death of the assignee of the property, on 13 May 2020, did the Municipality discover that the two defendants had been living there since April 2020. Despite the request to clear the property, notified on 20 May, the couple had not vacated the apartment, despite constant reminders.
For the defense, represented by lawyers Raffaella Parisi and Antonio Maestrini, it was necessary to “analyze the economic and psychological situation where the accused lived at the time of the events, as well as considering the ongoing health emergency. He’s a picture of desperation, the accused was in a serious situation of poverty aggravated by a bereavement which occurred in a dramatic situation. On the basis of necessity, the phenomenon of illegal occupation of properties has spread in recent decades as a consequence of the social desperation originating from economic crisis to which are added the consequences of the Covid pandemic.
The crisis caused by the restrictions aimed at containing the contagion has,
inevitably, the phenomenon of illegal occupation increased. The accused did not want to occupy the property to profit from it. The state of poverty constitutes a justified reason for occupying the house as a primary asset”. “The accused”, according to the defence, “was effectively without valid alternatives, in the availability of accommodation, even if only temporary, or a source of income suitable for finding it on the market”.
Even more: according to the judge who issued the acquittal sentence, “the property in which the defendants were held was not in fact inhabited or otherwise legitimately occupied by others, but was the subject of an administrative provision ordering their release”. “Now”, writes the judge in the motivation, “remaining in the property owned by the municipality took place without his conduct interfering or conditioning in any way the freedom of third parties to live or reside or otherwise occupy the house, as it had not been not even a possible assignee of the publicly owned property has been identified.
Furthermore, the stay in the property occurred shortly after the death of the brother and less than a month after the notification of the public administration’s provision and the expiry of the extension’s deadline”. “Excluded”, therefore, for the judge, “the existence of the subjective element required by the crime, i.e. intent such as awareness and desire to enter or remain in a place that constitutes another’s domicile against the will of whoever owns it”.
Sara Pizzorni
© All rights reserved
