Analysis of Judgment No. 39602 of 2024: Demolition Order and Amelioration Measures

The recent judgment No. 39602 of October 3, 2024, by the Court of Appeal of Naples addresses a highly relevant issue in the field of building regulations: the matter of demolition orders for illegal structures and the impact of amelioration measures (sanatoria) issued after a conviction has become final. Specifically, the Court declared the request for suspension of the demolition order inadmissible, highlighting that the issuance of a regularization permit does not prevent its execution, especially if the beneficiary was not the owner of the property at the time of construction.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

This judgment is part of a complex regulatory framework, including Presidential Decree 380/2001 and Law 47/1985, which detail procedures for urban planning and the fight against illegal construction. In particular, the regularization measure, although it may appear as a safe passage for illegal constructions, must be carefully assessed in terms of legitimacy and ownership rights. The Court reiterated that regularization granted to non-owners cannot affect the demolition order, which remains valid and applicable.

Judgment's Headnote and Commentary

Demolition Order - Regularization Measure - Issued, after the conviction has become final, in favor of individuals who are not owners of the property and have no qualified relationship with it - Obstacle Effect - Exclusion. In matters of building offenses, the issuance, subsequent to the conviction becoming final, of a regularization permit in favor of a person who was not the owner of the property at the time of construction and has no legally qualified real or obligatory relationship with it, does not prevent the execution of the demolition order for an illegal structure.

This headnote encapsulates the core of the decision. It clarifies that once the illegal nature of a structure has been established, any subsequent regularization does not affect the legitimacy of the demolition order. Therefore, even if an individual receives a regularization permit, if they were not the owner and had no legal ties to the property at the time of construction, they cannot oppose the demolition order.
Below are some key points to consider:

• The regularization measure cannot be used as a shield to avoid the demolition of illegal works.
• Ownership of the property at the time of construction is fundamental for the legitimacy of the building intervention.
• Previous judicial decisions support this interpretation, reiterating the need to comply with urban planning regulations.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 39602 of 2024 represents an important clarification in building matters, emphasizing the importance of ownership and legitimacy in managing illegal structures. In a context where illegal construction is a persistent problem, the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Naples is a significant step towards ensuring compliance with regulations and protecting the territory. Professionals in the sector and citizens must be aware that regularization measures cannot override violations of building laws and that the demolition order remains a fundamental tool for rectifying abuses.