{"id":5121,"date":"2026-06-04T22:57:26","date_gmt":"2026-06-04T20:57:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fidanziagigliola.it\/supreme-court-on-regional-compensation-for-damage-caused-by-huntable-wildlife\/"},"modified":"2026-06-04T23:00:05","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T21:00:05","slug":"supreme-court-on-regional-compensation-for-damage-caused-by-huntable-wildlife","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fidanziagigliola.it\/en\/supreme-court-on-regional-compensation-for-damage-caused-by-huntable-wildlife\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court: on regional compensation for damage caused by huntable wildlife."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Cass. civ. – Sec. III – Judgment of June 3, 2026, no. 17632 – Pres. De Stefano, Rel. Fanticini. <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

<\/p>\n\n

In a groundbreaking ruling, the Court of Cassation, upholding an appeal brought in the interest of the Emilia Romagna region, has ruled on the division of responsibility for damages caused within the Ambiti territoriali di caccia (territorial hunting areas), in this case that of Bologna, rejecting a farm’s claim for compensation, which was instead recognized by the territorial Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n\n

The Supreme Court has ruled on the regional legislation of the Emilia Romagna region, on the one hand, affirming that Article 17 of Regional Law No. 8\/1994 excludes the referability to the Region of those damages produced by huntable wildlife within the territorial hunting areas, and on the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled on co. 3b of the aforementioned article. Introduced after the time when the damage suffered by the farm occurred, the Court of Cassation stated that the rule (which expressly excludes the referability to the Region of the damage produced by huntable wildlife within the Territorial Hunting Areas) has an authentic interpretation function, since it reiterates a notion already inferable from the entire Article 17. In this sense, the Supreme Court has held that co. 3b is also applicable to cases prior to its entry into force. <\/p>\n\n

The particular novelty of the issue allowed the Supreme Court to express the following new principle of law, clarifying that “the compensation provided by art. 17 of Emilia Romagna Regional Law no. 8 of 1994, for damages caused by wildlife, presupposes the occurrence of the conditions expressly identified by the aforementioned provision, which limit regional intervention to specific territorial areas wildlife types; consequently – by virtue of paragraph 3-ter of art. 17 (introduced by Article 10 of Regional Law No. 9 of 2022), to be qualified as a rule of authentic interpretation, also applicable to pending judgments – damage caused by huntable species (in this case, wild boars) in areas <\/em>And<\/em> in which hunting is allowed<\/em>.”<\/p>\n\n

<\/p>\n\n