Commentary on Judgment No. 29342 of 2024: Manifest Unfoundedness of the Question of Constitutional Legitimacy

The recent judgment No. 29342 of March 21, 2024, represents an important reference point in Italian building law, addressing the question of the constitutional legitimacy of art. 75 of Presidential Decree of June 6, 2001, n. 380. This provision imposes sanctions for the lack of a test certificate, generating considerable discussion among industry operators and jurists. The Court declared the question of legitimacy manifestly unfounded, clarifying some crucial aspects of liability in the building sector.

Regulatory Context

Article 75 of Presidential Decree 380/2001 establishes that anyone who uses a building work without a test certificate is punishable. The main question raised concerned the term "anyone," which appears to include both the author of the work and the person who uses it. This led to questions about the conformity of the provision with articles 3 and 27 of the Constitution, which protect the principle of equality and the right to defense.

Works in reinforced concrete - Contravention sanctioning the lack of a test certificate - Question of constitutional legitimacy of art. 75 Presidential Decree 380/2001 for violation of arts. 3 and 27 of the Constitution - Manifest unfoundedness - Reasons. The question of constitutional legitimacy of art. 75 of Presidential Decree of June 6, 2001, n. 380, for conflict with arts. 3 and 27 of the Constitution, in the part where, by using the term "anyone," it sanctions, for the lack of a test certificate, both those who carried out the work and those who merely used it, is manifestly unfounded, given that it is entirely reasonable to punish the owner who uses or allows third parties to use the un-tested construction, as this is the subject who benefits from such use and who, at the same time, is obliged "ex lege" to obtain the test certificate.

The Court's Reasoning

The Court held that the sanction provided for by art. 75 is justified by the fact that the owner of the work, by using it, is the subject who derives the greatest benefit. For this reason, it is reasonable that even the person who did not carry out the work but allows its use is punished. This interpretation is based on the principle of responsibility, which is the foundation of building law. Furthermore, the Court referred to several previous judgments, consolidating its position and reiterating the need to ensure public safety.

• The owner is responsible for the safety of the work.
• The provision aims to prevent risks to the community.
• The sanction is proportionate to the benefit obtained from the use of the un-tested work.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 29342 of 2024 represents a significant step in protecting building safety in Italy. The declaration of unfoundedness of the question of constitutional legitimacy reiterates the importance of the owner's responsibility and the obligation to obtain the test certificate. This not only guarantees the safety of buildings but also protects users and the community from potential risks. The Court, therefore, not only confirms the validity of the provision but also establishes an important precedent for future disputes in building matters.