Building Amnesty and Landscape Constraints: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Limits of Sanability (Judgment 26660/2025)

The issue of illegal building, especially when it clashes with the protection of valuable landscape and environmental areas, has always been at the center of a heated legal debate. The recent judgment no. 26660, filed on July 21, 2025, by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. D. N. V. and reported by Dr. G. A., offers an important interpretation of the limits of sanability for illegal works, particularly when they are located in protected territories.

The Context of the Judgment and the Specific Case

The legal proceedings originated from the rejection, by the Court of Termini Imerese on March 11, 2025, of a request made by the defendant M. M. The application aimed at annulling a demolition order concerning an illegal construction for which a criminal conviction had already been issued. The work in question had been carried out within the Etna National Park, an area of extremely high naturalistic and landscape value, subject to stringent constraints, including hydrogeological ones.

The central point of the issue revolved around the possibility of regularizing such an illegal intervention, in light of the regulations on building amnesty and, in particular, a specific regional law of Sicily. M. M.'s defense invoked the applicability of Article 23 of the Regional Law of Sicily of August 10, 1985, no. 37, which appears to provide for the sanability of illegal works built in the Etna Park, subject to the issuance of a no-objection certificate from the competent authority for the constraint. However, the Supreme Court had to contend with the need to harmonize this regional provision with the more general state legislation on building amnesty.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: A Principle of Normative Hierarchy

The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 26660/2025, reiterated a fundamental principle regarding building offenses and landscape protection. Here is the ruling that summarizes the core of the decision:

In matters of building offenses, Article 23 of Regional Law of Sicily of August 10, 1985, no. 37, which provided for the sanability of illegal works built in the Etna National Park, subject to the issuance of a no-objection certificate from the competent authority for the constraint, cannot be interpreted in a way that conflicts with state legislation on building amnesty, as per Article 32 of Legislative Decree of September 30, 2003, no. 269, converted, with amendments, by Law of November 24, 2003, no. 326, which allowed the amnesty of only minor interventions, subject to obtaining a favorable opinion from the authority responsible for protecting the constraint. (Case in which the Court found no grounds for appeal in the rejection, by the execution judge, of the request to annul the demolition order for an illegal construction for which a criminal conviction had been issued, on the grounds of the non-sanability of the building intervention classified as "new construction," carried out in an area subject to hydrogeological constraints).

This ruling is of extreme importance. The Court of Cassation clarifies that a regional law, while it may regulate specific aspects, can never conflict with the principles and limits established by state legislation, especially when it comes to matters of exclusive or concurrent state competence, such as environmental and landscape protection. Article 32 of Legislative Decree no. 269 of 2003 (converted with amendments by Law no. 326 of 2003) is very clear: it allowed the amnesty of only "minor interventions." This means that "new construction" works, such as the one carried out by M. M. and classified as such by the Court, do not fall into this category and, consequently, cannot be regularized.

Furthermore, the judgment emphasizes the indispensable importance of the "favorable opinion from the authority responsible for protecting the constraint." This is not a mere bureaucratic formality but an essential filter to ensure that any intervention, even of minor scale, is compatible with the safeguarding of landscape and environmental heritage. In M. M.'s case, the work, being a "new construction" in an area subject to hydrogeological constraints, could evidently not benefit from such regularization.

Landscape Protection Between State and Regional Legislation

The decision of the Court of Cassation reiterates a cornerstone principle of our legal system: the prevalence of state legislation on environmental and landscape protection. Article 9 of the Italian Constitution enshrines the protection of the landscape and the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, elevating it to a primary value. State laws, such as Legislative Decree no. 269/2003 and the Consolidated Text on Building (Presidential Decree no. 380/2001), establish the boundaries within which Regions can legislate, ensuring a minimum and uniform level of protection throughout the national territory.

In the specific context of building amnesties, state provisions have always introduced severe limitations for protected areas, precisely to prevent the regularization of abuses from irreversibly compromising assets of collective value. The regional law of Sicily, while providing for a form of sanability, cannot derogate from these fundamental principles, especially when the illegal intervention is of such magnitude as to constitute "new construction" and is located in a valuable area like the Etna Park, which is internationally recognized.

The key elements emerging from this ruling, fundamental for understanding the limits of sanability in protected areas, can be summarized as follows:

• **Prevalence of State Legislation:** Regional laws cannot conflict with the principles and limits established by national legislation on building amnesty and landscape protection.
• **Limitation to "Minor Interventions":** Only works of modest scale can be subject to amnesty in protected areas; "new constructions" are excluded.
• **Necessity of "No-Objection" or Favorable Opinion:** Authorization from the body responsible for protecting the constraint is an essential and non-substitutable requirement.
• **Non-Sanability of Conflicting Works:** An illegal building intervention that does not comply with these criteria is considered not subject to regularization, with the consequent legitimacy of the demolition order.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 26660 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a clear and strong warning for anyone intending to carry out building interventions in protected areas. It reinforces the principle that the protection of landscape and environment is a primary and non-derogable value of our legal system, which cannot be sacrificed in the name of extensive interpretations of regional amnesty regulations. For citizens and businesses, this means that maximum attention and scrupulous compliance with urban planning and landscape regulations are essential, especially in contexts of naturalistic value. Therefore, relying on expert professionals in urban planning and environmental law becomes essential to avoid serious legal consequences, such as the demolition of illegal works and related criminal sanctions.