Occupation without title

The Supreme Court (TS) has analyzed a typical case of breakup, in the midst of a divorce process , one of the spouses (who was the one listed as the holder of the electricity contract and who paid for the electricity) decided, without warning, to terminate the electricity supply of the family home. The other spouse continued to live there and was left several days without electricity . The question was clear: is this “just” a family/civil conflict or can it be a crime?

The majority of the TS understands that it is not a simple non-payment nor a passivity, but a deliberate action, cutting (or provoking the cut) of a basic service to pressure the other and get them to do something they do not want, in this case, leave the house. According to the TS, using the lack of light as a “lever” to force an exit really affects the freedom of the person to remain in the home, and fits into the crime of coercion . It qualifies it as a form of “violence against things” (vis in rebus), it is not necessary to push or hit someone; it is enough to manipulate something essential (like the supply) to bend their will.

It also makes it clear that being the holder of the contract does not give "carte blanche" to do this in a family home, because there are judicial avenues to discuss the use of the house and expenses during the marital crisis.

However, the ruling clarifies that the assessment could be different if the person occupying the property does so without title (unlawful occupation), because in that case there would be no reason to maintain supplies for someone who has no right to be there.

Four magistrates disagree: they warn that the concept of violence is being stretched too far and that these conflicts should be resolved through other means, not through criminal law.

In actions derived from facts that may constitute a criminal offense, our lawyers are at your disposal for the defense of your rights.