Commentary on Judgment No. 3043 of 2024: Enforcement of Demolition Orders for Building Offences

Judgment No. 3043 of December 18, 2024, by the Court of Cassation provides important clarifications on the consequences related to building offences, particularly regarding the enforcement of demolition orders. This specific case, which involved a dispute between the Public Prosecutor and a defendant, focuses on the convicted person's obligation to proceed with the demolition of an illegal building within specific timeframes and the consequences of exceeding these deadlines.

Content of the Judgment

The Court establishes that the convicted person has the right to proceed, at their own expense, with the execution of the demolition order within ninety days from the date the judgment becomes final. This timeframe is established by Article 31, paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree No. 380 of June 6, 2001. Once this period has elapsed, the convicted person is no longer entitled to request the suspension or revocation of the injunction issued by the public prosecutor for the execution of the demolition.

Building offences - Demolition order - Execution at the convicted person's care and expense - Timeframe - Indication - Exceeding - Consequences - Self-demolition - Possibility - Exclusion. In the context of building offences, the convicted person has the right to proceed, under their own care and at their own expense, with the execution of the judicial order to demolish the illegal building within the timeframe of ninety days from the date the judgment becomes final (as per Article 31, paragraph 3, Presidential Decree No. 380 of June 6, 2001). Once this period has elapsed, they are no longer entitled to request, for the purpose of "self-demolition", the suspension or revocation of the injunction issued by the public prosecutor in execution of the conviction.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment underscores the importance of timely compliance with demolition orders. The consequences of failing to meet the ninety-day deadline can be significant:

• Loss of the possibility to request the suspension of the injunction.
• Inability to proceed with self-demolition, thus delegating the burden of execution to the State.
• Increase in legal and administrative costs, as the convicted person will be compelled to undergo the forced execution of the demolition order.

In essence, the Court of Cassation has reiterated that current legislation on building matters must be strictly adhered to, and any delay entails legal consequences that can worsen the convicted person's position.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 3043 of 2024 is an important ruling that clarifies the role and rights of the convicted person in matters of building offences. It serves as a warning to those who must face demolition orders and highlights the importance of acting promptly. Knowledge of one's rights and duties is fundamental to avoiding more serious consequences and to appropriately managing situations related to illegal construction.