Right to survival prevails over the property.
Stealing small amounts of food to stave off ones hunger is not a crime, Italy’s highest court of appeal has so ruled.
Judges overturned a theft conviction against accused Roman Ostriakov after he stole cheese and sausages worth €4.07 (£3; $4.50) from a supermarket.
Accused Ostriakov, a homeless man of Ukrainian back ground, had taken the food “in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment”, the court of cassation decided.
Therefore it was not a crime in the eyes of Law, it said.
A fellow customer who saw him lifting food informed the store’s security in 2011, when Ostriakov attempted to leave the Genoa supermarket with two pieces of cheese and a packet of sausages in his pocket but paid only for breadsticks.
In 2015, Mr Ostriakov was convicted of theft and sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine by the court.
For the judges, the “right to survival prevails over the property”, said an op-ed in La Stampa newspaper (in Italian).
In times of such economic hardship, the court of cassation’s judgement “reminds everyone that in a civilised country not even the worst of men should starve in any manner”.
An opinion piece in Corriere Della Sera says statistics suggest around 615 people are added to the ranks of the poor in Italy every day – it was “unthinkable that the law should not take note of reality”.
It criticised the fact that a case concerning the taking of goods worth under €5 went through three rounds in the courts before being finally thrown out.
This “historic” ruling is “right and pertinent”, said Italiaglobale.it – and derives from the concept that “informed the Western world for centuries – what is called humanity”.
However, his case was sent to appellate court on the grounds that the conviction should be reduced to attempted theft and the sentence cut, as Mr Ostriakov was within the shop premises when he was caught.
Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation, which reviews only the application of the law and not the facts of the case, on Monday made a final and definitive ruling overturning the conviction in its entirety.
Stealing small quantity of food to satisfy a vital need for food did not constitute a crime, the court ruled.
“The condition of the defendant accused and the circumstances in which the seizure of merchandise took place prove that he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of an immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of absolute necessity,” wrote the court.