The Supreme Court opens the door for property owners to stop paying utility bills in cases of occupation without legal title
Judgment 426/2026 of the Plenary Session of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court has recently attracted widespread attention. The reason is that it establishes case law on an issue that had generated conflicting decisions and legal debate: whether cutting off the electricity supply in order to force a person to leave a property can constitute the criminal offence of coercion.
The Court’s answer is yes. Coercion may be committed when the person occupying the property is doing so lawfully. However, the ruling contains a second conclusion that may have even greater practical significance: property owners do not appear to be required to continue paying the utility bills of a property that is being occupied illegally.
The case did not involve illegal occupation
The facts examined by the Supreme Court did not concern a case of illegal occupation by squatters, but rather a marital breakdown. During divorce proceedings, the husband cancelled the electricity contract for the family home with the aim of forcing his wife to leave the property, where she was still lawfully residing. The Court held that cancelling the electricity supply amounted to a form of pressure intended to overcome her will.
For this reason, the Plenary Session of the Chamber upheld the conviction for coercion and established that the so-called vis in rebus — force exercised over things — may also constitute the offence when it is used to restrict a person’s freedom.
The key is to distinguish between those who have a right to occupy the property and those who do not
The main contribution of the judgment is that the Court clearly distinguishes between two situations that had often been confused until now.
On the one hand, there are people who occupy a property under some form of legal title, even if that title is disputed or pending judicial resolution: a tenant, a spouse with a right of use, an authorised family member, or any person whose possession is lawful or apparently lawful.
In such cases, the owner cannot use the interruption of utilities as a means of pressure to recover possession of the property. If the owner wishes to obtain eviction, they must resort to the corresponding judicial procedures.
However, the Court states that the situation is different when the person occupying the property has absolutely no right or legal title supporting their possession.
The owner should not have to pay the squatters’ utility bills
It is at this point that the judgment introduces a particularly relevant legal approach.
The Court points out that, where the occupation is completely unlawful, there are several arguments in favour of excluding the criminal liability of an owner who decides to stop maintaining the utility services.
First, it considers that one of the elements of the offence of coercion may be absent, since the owner would be acting in exercise of their own rights and would therefore not be acting “without being authorised”, as required by the criminal offence.
Second, it expressly states that it does not appear reasonable to require the owner to keep essential services connected and to pay for them for the benefit of people who have unlawfully entered their property.
Finally, it warns that forcing the owner to continue paying for electricity, water or gas would result in unjust enrichment of the occupants, who would not only enjoy the property without any legal right, but would also benefit from its utilities without bearing their cost.
Does this mean utilities can be cut off to squatters?
The answer is that the Supreme Court clearly points in this direction, but it has not yet established an absolute rule
The judgment stresses that the case before it did not concern illegal occupation and, for that reason, its comments regarding squatters without legal title are only indicative. The Court itself uses expressions such as “it might possibly lead us to a different solution” or “support a finding of non-punishability”, making clear that the issue will need to be confirmed when it rules on a case specifically involving illegal occupation.
Therefore, the ruling does not indiscriminately authorise any action by the owner. What it does is establish a very favourable line of interpretation allowing owners to cancel contracts held in their own name or stop bearing the cost of utilities when the occupant has no legal title whatsoever.
This does not, however, legitimise physical interference such as tampering with meters, installations, service connections or shut-off valves, nor does it permit owners to take matters into their own hands where there is any doubt as to the occupant’s right of possession.
A legal doctrine that could change many disputes
Until now, many property owners continued paying utility bills for months or even years in illegally occupied properties for fear of being reported for coercion.
Judgment 426/2026 substantially changes this situation. Without legitimising self-help measures or replacing judicial eviction procedures, the Court makes clear that it does not appear reasonable to require a property owner to finance essential services for a wholly unlawful occupation.
The distinction is decisive: cutting off utilities to someone who lawfully occupies a property may constitute the criminal offence of coercion; by contrast, where squatters have no legal title whatsoever, the Supreme Court considers that the criminal-law response may be different because the owner should not have to bear indefinitely the cost of utilities arising from an unlawful occupation.