The Affective Bond of a Couple and its Cessation: Legal Profiles and Relevance of Natural Obligations

Abstract

The article analyses the recent orientation of the Court of Cassation on the subject of natural obligations arising from a cohabitation relationship more uxorio. The analysis focuses on the legal qualification of the material assistance and economic contribution services provided by one cohabitant to the other, both during the relationship and after its termination. The ruling in question offers a significant contribution to the reflection on family pluralism and the protection of de facto unions, highlighting the role of the solidarity and affective bond also in the post-relational phase.

1. Introduction

De facto unions are a constantly evolving social phenomenon and are protected by art. 2 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of the individual to form affective relationships within social groups. Such relationships, although devoid of formal legal constraints, often involve the assumption of mutual moral and social obligations, whose legal relevance is manifested even after the cessation of cohabitation.

This paper analyses the recent ruling of the Court of Cassation (Cass., sect. I, 2 January 2025, n. 28), which addressed the issue of the legal nature of economic attributions made by one cohabitant in favour of the other, recognising the possibility that such benefits configure natural obligations pursuant to art. 2034 of the civil code.

2. Maxim of the decision

De facto unions are a widespread social phenomenon, which is protected by art. 2 of the Constitution, and are characterized by moral and social duties of each cohabitant towards the other, which can materialize in activities of material assistance and economic contribution, not only during the cohabitation relationship, but also in the period following its termination. Such services can be configured, having regard to the specificity of the specific case, as fulfillment of a natural obligation pursuant to art. 2034 of the Civil Code, where the additional requirements of proportionality, spontaneity and adequacy are present.

The bond of solidarity and affection that originates from the previous de facto union is part of a changed value context, in which the pluralistic conception of the family takes on an increasingly important role.

3. The Case in Point

In the case in question in the ruling under comment, the termination of a long-term cohabitation relationship led to the need to qualify the financial services provided by a former cohabitant to the other, who was in financial and health difficulty.

The cohabitant had continued to provide material support to the ex-partner, providing him with a home and providing for his primary needs. Subsequently, when the cohabitant was no longer able to support the economic burden, the son had assumed responsibility for the maintenance of his father, subsequently requesting reimbursement of the sums paid to his blood brother.

The Court of Appeal of Milan had distinguished between the expenses incurred by the mother and those paid by the son, recognizing the unrecoverability of the former as they were attributable to a natural obligation and admitting instead the pro rata reimbursement for the expenses documented by the son.

4. The Legal Question

The Court of Cassation addressed two important issues:

Are de facto unions characterised by moral and social duties similar to those of the family founded on marriage?
Can economic attributions made after the cessation of cohabitation be configured as natural obligations pursuant to art. 2034 of the Civil Code?
The absence of specific precedents in the case law of legitimacy has made it necessary to carry out a theoretical study and a systematic reconstruction of the normative and value framework of reference.

5. The Legal Solutions Adopted

The Court of Cassation reiterated that de facto unions, although not regulated by the rules on marriage, present significant analogies with the legitimate family and are permeated by moral and social duties (Cass., sect. I, 13 June 2023, no. 16864).

In this case, the Court stated that the financial contributions made by the cohabitant fell within the scope of natural obligations, characterised by:

Spontaneity of performance: the former partner acted without a formal legal bond.
Proportionality and adequacy: the amounts paid were in line with the economic possibilities of the solvens and with the needs of the beneficiary.
Social and value context: solidarity between former cohabitants responds to a widespread ethical principle in contemporary society.
These principles are confirmed by the consolidated jurisprudential orientation, according to which the reference to solidarity needs is not sufficient to integrate a natural obligation, if the criteria of proportionality and adequacy are not respected (Cass., sect. III, 15 May 2009, n. 11330; Cass., sect. II, 30 September 2016, n. 19578).

Conversely, where the attributions exceed these limits, this would constitute unjustified enrichment, with the possibility of exercising the restitution remedy (Cass., section III, 22 September 2015, no. 18632).

6. Conclusions and Systematic Implications

The ruling in question represents a further step in the recognition of de facto unions as social formations worthy of protection. The bond of solidarity and affection that characterizes cohabitation more uxorio does not necessarily end with the end of the relationship, but can translate into moral and social obligations, which are also relevant on a legal level.

The evolution of jurisprudence shows how family law is progressively adapting to the multiplicity of existing family models, overcoming the rigid distinction between marital family and de facto family (Constitutional Court, 25 July 2024, n. 148).

The issue of natural obligations post-cohabitation poses new interpretative and applicative challenges, which will require further jurisprudential and doctrinal investigations.