Life in a condominium is not always easy: discussions, misunderstandings and tensions with the manager are the order of the day.
But be careful: venting your frustration via email in abusive tones can have very serious legal and financial consequences. A recent Supreme Court decision found that insulting the condominium manager through private messages, even without disclosing them to third parties, constitutes a civil offense.
The result? Judgment for damages. An important precedent every condominium owner should know before hitting send.
The decision that changes the rules of condominiums
The case arises out of a specific fact: a condominium owner from Lecco, over the course of approximately two years, had sent several emails with seriously offensive content to the manager of her condominium. The latter had addressed the Magistrate’s Court requesting compensation for the damage to his dignity and reputation. The judge agreed with him, ordering the woman to pay 3,000 euros, plus interest and court costs.
The decision was then upheld on appeal by the Court of Lecco. The co-owner then sought to appeal to the High Court, arguing that she had acted in a moment of intense irritation caused by the practitioner’s alleged non-compliance and that the emails, being private, did not constitute defamation.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the appeal, clarifying that defamation, although no longer a crime as of 2016, remains a fully compensable civil wrong, regardless of the fact that the messages were only read by the recipient. A principle that overturns the widespread belief that “what is private cannot cause harm”.
Because “I was angry” is not enough of an excuse
One of the most relevant aspects of the decision concerns the state of anger defence. The condominium owner had invoked a rule that, in theory, precludes penalties for those who act under the influence of unfair provocation. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this circumstance must be specifically proven in court and cannot simply be stated.
If the judges of value have not considered it proven, the Court of Cassation cannot substitute its own assessment: it is not, in fact, a third degree of value. This means that, in the case of a condominium dispute, it is not enough to state that you wrote under the impulse of anger: it must be proven by concrete evidence, testimony or documentation. In practical terms, the decision sends a clear message to all condominium owners: digital communication, even private communication, is not a free zone.
Insults that are repeated over time, aggressive messages or expressions that damage the dignity of others can turn into very specific financial liability. In an age where WhatsApp and email have replaced face-to-face conversations, it is essential to remember that written words leave traces and can carry significant legal weight.
