Ilenia Mauro, Furto di energia: la Cassazione conferma la non applicabilità dello stato di necessità


1. Breve analisi delle motivazioni sottese alla pronuncia della Cassazione n. 39884 del 4 settembre 2017.

2. L’interpretazione evolutiva del concetto di bene primario ad opera della giurisprudenza di legittimità: il caso dell’esigenza abitativa. 

3. Produzione e commercializzazione dell’energia elettrica: il ruolo dell’utente/consumatore finale. 

4. L’energia bene comune nelle recenti riflessioni dottrinarie. 

5. Riflessioni conclusive.


The aim of this article is the analysis based on the principle recently issued by the Supreme Court regarding electricity theft. The Judges have affirmed that the Article 54 of Criminal Code concerning the exonerating circumstance of necessity is not applicable, even in case of financial or economic need where the requirements and unavoidability of current events are not fulfilled. Moreover, the Supreme Judges have stated that electricity is not essential for life, meaning that human beings can survive without it. In some fields of the Italian legal system, electricity is considered an essential good and it is direct to satisfy public interests that are functional to exercise fundamental rights. In my article, I will discuss that the idea of electricity as common good cannot be compromised by wrong interpretation, but it should be interpreted balancing the interests of the parts involved in a criminal proceeding