Bologna court denies bicycle’s return after disputed WhatsApp permission to keep and use it

The Justice of the Peace court in Bologna denied Dario Bellandi’s request for the return of a bicycle from Elisa Neri, ruling that he had not proved the stronger right to possess it. The bicycle will remain with Neri. Bellandi sought no money, and neither party received a monetary award.

The dispute turned on whether permission to keep and use a bicycle amounted to a gift or merely an arrangement prompted by a shortage of storage space. The court did not conclusively accept Neri’s gift argument: it found that the uncertainty in the evidence defeated Bellandi’s claim.

A purchase receipt identified Bellandi as the buyer and matched the bicycle by its frame number. It predated the disputed arrangement by eighteen months. That reliably established his original purchase, the court found, but could not establish what the parties agreed later.

The central evidence was a readable WhatsApp screenshot. Bellandi told Neri she could keep and use the bicycle because his new flat had no space. Neri replied that it would help her get around. Neither disputed the wording.

The court found support for both interpretations. Permission to keep the bicycle could suggest a gift; the storage explanation could fit permission to use it without transferring ownership. The exchange contained no express gift, return date or later clarification.

Bellandi bore the burden of proving both that the arrangement was only a loan and that his present right to possession was stronger. His storage explanation was plausible, but the record did not establish a reserved right to reclaim the bicycle. Earlier purchase alone was insufficient.

Neri’s account of using the bicycle and not remembering a return request was relayed through counsel, not admitted witness testimony. It did not independently establish Bellandi’s intent.

Bellandi argued that allowing Neri to use the bicycle did not surrender ownership. He relied on the receipt and his lack of storage space, while acknowledging that the message set no return date and supported competing readings. He said he had no further messages or independent evidence to resolve its meaning.

Neri’s counsel argued that permission without any mention of return communicated a permanent transfer. Counsel also made accusations of extortion and subterfuge, which the court found unsupported and unnecessary to decide the property dispute.

The bicycle cost €310. After Bellandi said his new flat lacked bicycle space, the parties exchanged the WhatsApp messages on which their competing accounts rested. Neri’s account was that she subsequently used it for errands in Bologna.

The ruling resolves the return claim on the evidence presented. It does not establish that the screenshot expressly recorded a gift, or that the absence of a return date necessarily turns permission to use property into ownership.