CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION
The contract has ended, the keys have not been returned and the bills keep coming. For an individual or a company letting residential property, this situation can result in significant financial loss. And if they have also read that the Supreme Court allows landlords to cut off utilities to “squatters”, the temptation to do so is understandable. However, one essential question remains: what happens when the person staying in the property originally entered with the owner’s consent?
Supreme Court judgment 426/2026, handed down by the Full Criminal Chamber on 24 June, arose from a marital dispute. In divorce proceedings, the husband cancelled the electricity supply to the family home in an attempt to force his wife to leave. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction for coercion: the fact that he was the holder of the electricity contract did not entitle him to deprive her of an essential service for the purpose of forcing her to leave.
The judgment nevertheless introduces an important qualification: this approach should not automatically be extended to a person who has no right or title whatsoever to occupy the property. In relation to this situation, which was not the subject of the case before the Court, the judgment provides grounds for arguing against penalising an owner who cancels or stops paying for utilities. It expressly distinguishes this situation, however, from one in which there is a valid, apparent or disputed title to occupy the property.
Between these two scenarios lies a situation affecting many landlords: that of a tenant whose lease has expired, or a person who was temporarily given use of a property and subsequently fails to return it when required. The judgment does not specifically determine what happens to utilities where possession was initially granted with consent but subsequently loses its legal basis.
A distinction should be drawn at the outset: simply failing to pay rent does not, in itself, terminate the lease. Nor is it sufficient to rely on the expiry date without checking any applicable extensions or the effectiveness of the termination of the lease. Where there are legitimate grounds for disputing the right to remain in the property, it is difficult to assume that the occupation is entirely devoid of any legal title.
Furthermore, case law on the criminal offence of unlawful occupation provides an important warning. Supreme Court judgment 800/2014 of 12 November states that, where permission was given to occupy a property, even temporarily or on a precarious basis, possession must be recovered through the appropriate civil proceedings. A subsequent refusal to return the property does not automatically make the occupant liable for the offence under Article 245.2 of the Criminal Code. Losing the right to remain and committing unlawful occupation are therefore two distinct matters.
That doctrine, however, does not by itself determine who should continue to pay the utility bills. Where the title has unequivocally come to an end, it may be argued that some of the reasoning adopted in the new judgment — such as the principle that there is no obligation to finance use of a property to which there is no longer any right — could apply. This is nevertheless an interpretation that must be justified on a case-by-case basis, since the judgment does not expressly establish this consequence for someone who initially entered the property lawfully.
The potential criminal liability also requires consideration of how and why the service is interrupted. Article 172 of the Criminal Code protects freedom of action and provides that coercion may be exercised by acting upon property or things. Deliberately cancelling a utility supply in order to force an occupant to comply with the owner’s wishes may therefore have criminal implications. However, a genuine inability to pay the bills requires a different assessment: not every failure to pay constitutes coercion, nor is every cancellation of a utility supply justified merely by virtue of ownership.
For an SME, the practical consequence is to review the lease, termination notices, possession status and obligations relating to utilities before instructing that a supply be disconnected. The landlord should document the demand for the property to be returned and initiate the appropriate proceedings to recover possession and claim any amounts due. A burofax can provide evidence that a formal demand was made; it does not, however, amount to authorisation to carry out a self-help eviction.
Furthermore, if violence, intimidation or force against property is used to enforce a right outside the legal channels, Article 455 of the Criminal Code may apply, concerning the unlawful taking of the law into one’s own hands. Liability may attach personally to the individual who orders or carries out such actions, even where the property belongs to a company.
In conclusion, applying this new doctrine requires a distinction to be drawn between an occupant who entered the property unlawfully and one who initially entered with the owner’s consent. Failure to make that distinction could mean that the savings achieved by cutting utility costs ultimately prove very expensive if they trigger criminal proceedings.
