Judgment no. 18765 of 2024: Automatic forfeiture in public housing allocation

The recent ordinance no. 18765 of July 9, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue in the field of public residential building: the continued requirement of not owning property for the allocation of housing. This judgment is part of a legal context of great importance, establishing principles that can significantly influence the fate of many assignees.

Legal context and the Court's decision

The Court overturned a previous decision by the Court of Appeal of Rome which had examined the case of M. (D. C. F.) against R., highlighting that the requirement of not owning property must be maintained for the entire period of allocation. According to Article 11, paragraph 1, letter c), of Regional Law Lazio no. 12 of 1999, the loss of this requirement leads to automatic forfeiture of the housing allocation.

Art. 11, paragraph 1, letter c), of Regional Law Lazio no. 12 of 1999 - Continued requirement of not owning property for the entire duration of the relationship - Necessity - Subsequent loss of the requirement - Consequences - Automatic forfeiture of the assignee - Moment of ascertainment by the administrative authority - Relevance - Exclusion - Basis. In matters of public residential building, the requirement of not owning property, referred to in art. 11, paragraph 1, letter c), of Regional Law Lazio no. 12 of 1999, must be maintained for the entire duration of the relationship, with the consequence that its subsequent loss leads to automatic forfeiture from the housing allocation, regardless of the moment in which the administrative authority ascertains the (in)existence of the requirements, given that the forfeiture ruling has a merely declarative value of the extinction "by law" of the previous allocation, which has already occurred at the very moment the cause for forfeiture materialized.

Implications of the judgment

The judgment emphasizes that forfeiture from the allocation is not linked to the timing of the ascertainment by the administrative authority, but occurs automatically at the moment the requirement of not owning property ceases to be met. This principle is of particular importance as it ensures fairness and transparency in the management of public housing, protecting the interests of those who genuinely need it.

• Reinforces the concept of assignee responsibility.
• Establishes a legal precedent for future similar cases.
• Clarifies the task of authorities in monitoring allocation requirements.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ordinance no. 18765 of 2024 represents an important reference point in the law of public residential building, reiterating the necessity of maintaining the requirement of not owning property for the entire duration of the allocation relationship. The decision of the Court of Cassation not only clarifies the rights and duties of assignees but also offers greater legal certainty for the competent authorities. This regulatory clarification is fundamental to ensure that public resources are allocated to those who genuinely need them, preventing abuses and ensuring fair use of public housing.