Commentary on Judgment No. 9296 of 2024: Public Contributions and Prohibition of Accommodation Activities in Venice

The Court of Cassation, with order No. 9296 of April 8, 2024, addressed a matter of significant importance for the preservation of Venice's real estate heritage. Specifically, the judgment concerns the legitimacy of revoking public contributions granted for property conservation, following a violation of the prohibition against using such properties for family-run accommodation activities, commonly known as bed & breakfasts.

Regulatory Context

Italian law, and in particular Law No. 798 of November 29, 1984, establishes precise criteria for the disbursement of public contributions intended for the safeguarding of Venice. A crucial aspect is the adherence to the intended use of the properties, which must remain residential. The Court reiterated that violation of this prohibition leads to the automatic revocation of contributions, without considering the compatibility between accommodation and residential use.

The Ruling's Principle

Public contributions for the safeguarding of Venice - Call for applications for disbursement and subsequent unilateral undertaking - Prohibition of using the property for family-run accommodation activities (so-called "bed & breakfast") - Compatibility of accommodation use with residential use - Irrelevance - Consequences - Revocation of the contribution. Regarding public contributions for the safeguarding of Venice, the revocation of the benefit following the ascertained violation of the prohibition against using the property subject to the contribution for family-run accommodation activities (so-called "bed & breakfast"), other than exclusive personal use, must be considered legitimate. It is not relevant for this purpose whether the beneficiary can reside in a part of the leased property, nor whether said accommodation activity is abstractly compatible with the residential or dwelling use of the real estate unit.

Implications of the Judgment

This decision has significant implications not only for beneficiaries of public contributions but also for the protection of Venice's cultural and architectural heritage. The judgment emphasizes that:

• Compliance with regulations is fundamental for the granting of public contributions.
• Family-run accommodation activities are not permissible in protected residential contexts.
• Violation of these prohibitions leads to immediate sanctions, such as the revocation of contributions.

In this way, the Court of Cassation acts as a guardian of the regulations protecting Venice, imposing clear and strict rules for the management of properties intended to receive public aid.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 9296 of 2024 represents an important milestone in Italian jurisprudence concerning the safeguarding of Venice. It reaffirms the necessity of rigorously respecting property use regulations, thereby ensuring the protection of one of our country's most precious cultural heritages. It is essential that property owners in Venice are fully aware of these provisions to avoid incurring sanctions and the revocation of public contributions received.