Theft between cohabitees is punishable. Only valid for spouses and civil unions

Much progress has been made in equating cohabitation with marriage. But the equal treatment does not apply totheft against aspouse, which remainspunishable, unlike theft against one of thespouses or the member of thecivilly united couple. The Court of Cassation thus rejected the appeal of a man who had thought of appropriating thesummer tyres owned by his domestic partner, which were kept in thegarage of his house.

The defence unsuccessfully reminded the judges that, in the same situation, a husband would not have been punished thanks to Article 649 of the Criminal Code, which would have allowed the spouse to go unpunished, in the case of a crime against property  such as theft. However, the Supreme Court explains that the rule invoked, given its exceptional character, can only be applied to family relationships typified by the legislature. It therefore applies in the case of civilly united couples, after the introduction of theCirinnà law, but not for those de facto, in the absence of an ad hoc intervention by the legislature.

A difference in treatment that is not in conflict with the Constitution, given that the Constitutional Court itself, on several occasions, has clarified that de facto cohabitation is not endowed with the characteristics of certainty and tendential stability typical of marital or civil union ties. But where the law or jurisprudence does not arrive, perhaps love arrives, because in the case examined, the man avoids conviction for theft thanks to his partner, who remits thecomplaint.