Cassation Order 16394/2025: All Co-owners Legitimized to Act for Respect of Legal Distances

Condominium law is a complex universe, dotted with rules and jurisprudential interpretations that define its boundaries. One of the most debated issues concerns the standing to sue in court to protect common interests. With Order No. 16394 of 18/06/2025, the Court of Cassation provided a fundamental clarification on legal distances, affirming a principle of great practical relevance for all co-owners and administrators.

The Supreme Court's ruling, which involved C. versus F., quashed and remanded a previous decision by the Court of Appeal of Milan of 19/08/2019, forcefully reaffirming a principle already expressed in the past, but which always deserves attention for its implications.

The Regulatory Framework: Legal Distances and Condominiums

The issue of legal distances is primarily governed by Article 873 of the Civil Code, which establishes that constructions on adjoining properties, if not joined or adjacent, must be kept at a distance of not less than three meters, unless otherwise provided by local regulations. To this rule are added the prescriptions of municipal building regulations and special provisions, such as those contained in Ministerial Decree No. 1444 of 1968, which set mandatory minimum distances between buildings.

In the condominium context, the application of these rules takes on particular complexity. A condominium building is, by its nature, a complex unit composed of parts of exclusive ownership and common parts, as established by Article 1117 of the Civil Code. When an external construction violates legal distances, the question naturally arises: who is legitimized to defend the building? Only the owner of the property unit directly affected by the violation, or all co-owners?

The Ruling of Order 16394/2025: A Fundamental Principle

The Court of Cassation, with Order No. 16394 of 2025, offered a clear and unequivocal answer, confirming an already established trend, as evidenced by the consistent Ruling No. 21486 of 2012. Here is the full ruling:

In the case of a condominium building, all co-owners, not just those who own the exclusive portions directly facing the constructions that violate legal distances (in this case, those referred to in Ministerial Decree No. 1444 of 1968), are legitimized to act to enforce compliance with the provisions on distances, which aim to safeguard the buildings considered in their entirety.

This principle is of crucial importance. The Court emphasizes that the rules on legal distances are not intended to protect individual exclusive property but the building as a whole. This means that the violation of such distances affects the stability, architectural appearance, and healthiness of the entire condominium building, and not just the portion of those directly overlooking the illegal construction. Consequently, every co-owner, as a participant in the co-ownership and co-owner of the common parts (Art. 1105 of the Civil Code and Art. 1117 of the Civil Code), has a legitimate and direct interest in initiating action for the restoration of distances.

Practical Implications for Co-owners and the Administrator

The consequences of this ruling are significant:

• Broad Standing: It is not necessary to be the owner of the apartment closest to the illegal construction. Any co-owner can take legal action, strengthening the building's protection.
• Integral Protection: The objective is to safeguard the integrity of the condominium building as a whole, an asset that belongs to all property owners.
• Role of the Administrator: Although the ruling refers to the standing of individual co-owners, the administrator, pursuant to Art. 1131 of the Civil Code, has the power to take conservative measures relating to the common parts of the building. Therefore, the administrator could also be called upon to act to protect legal distances, subject to a resolution by the assembly or, in urgent cases, autonomously.
• Greater Effectiveness of Action: The possibility for multiple parties to act makes it more likely that violations of distances will be effectively challenged and corrected, preventing building abuses and maintaining the decorum and safety of the properties.

Conclusions

Order No. 16394 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation reiterates a fundamental principle: the protection of legal distances in condominiums is an interest that transcends individual property, involving the entire building and, consequently, all its owners. This interpretation ensures greater protection for condominium buildings, guaranteeing that urban planning and civil rules are respected and that every co-owner can actively contribute to the defense of the common good. It is an important reminder for those living in condominiums and those responsible for their management, highlighting the importance of being vigilant and ready to protect collective rights.