Commentary on Judgment No. 21672 of 2024: Urban Confiscation and Real Estate Ownership

Judgment No. 21672 of August 1, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important point of reflection on the issue of urban confiscation and its consequences for owners of illegally built properties. In a legal context increasingly focused on the protection of the territory and urban planning regulations, the decision clarifies some fundamental aspects concerning the original acquisition by the municipality of illegally built real estate.

Urban Confiscation: What Does It Entail?

The headnote of the judgment reads:

(ADMINISTRATIVE CONFISCATION) Urban Confiscation - Original acquisition by the municipal patrimony of the ownership of the illegally built property, not demolished within the legal term - Persistence of the animus possidendi in the previous owner - Exclusion - Limits. In the case of urban confiscation of an illegally built property, where ownership of the illegally built property is acquired by the municipality by original title, not having been demolished within the legal term, the original acquisition of ownership by the municipal patrimony is realized, with the consequence that the animus possidendi cannot be attributed to the previous owner, whose factual power - should they continue to occupy the property - is configured as mere detention, which does not allow for the reacquisition of ownership through adverse possession, except for acts of change of possession pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 1141 of the Civil Code.

This statement clarifies that, in the case of urban confiscation, the municipality acquires ownership of the illegally built property by original title. This means that, once the confiscation is completed, the previous owner loses all rights of possession, converting their occupation into mere detention. In other words, they can no longer be considered the owner of the property and do not have the possibility to reacquire it through adverse possession, unless there is a change in their possessory situation.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

The judgment is part of a legal landscape where urban planning regulations are increasingly stringent. Regulatory references, such as Article 1141 of the Civil Code, which governs adverse possession, and Law No. 47 of 1987, highlight the importance of legality in the management of real estate assets. The fact that the previous owner cannot reacquire ownership except through formal acts of change of possession underscores the necessity of complying with urban planning regulations and protecting municipal assets.

It is fundamental to understand that confiscation is not merely a sanction but represents an action to protect the territory and the community. Municipal authorities, through this instrument, can ensure compliance with regulations and safeguard the urban landscape.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 21672 of 2024 stands as an important precedent in Italian urban planning law, clarifying the consequences of confiscating illegally built properties. The loss of animus possidendi by the previous owner and the conversion of their occupation into mere detention raise significant questions regarding the management of non-compliant properties. It is essential for citizens to be informed about these dynamics to avoid surprises and to fully understand the legal implications of their actions in the field of construction and urban planning.