Analysis of Ordinance No. 21798 of 2024: Right of View and Legal Distances

The recent Ordinance No. 21798 of August 2, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, sheds new light on issues related to the right of view and the distances regulated by Article 907 of the Civil Code. In this article, we will analyze the implications of this decision, seeking to make the legal concepts involved and their practical application understandable.

Legal Context

The central issue of the ordinance concerns legal actions aimed at ensuring compliance with legal distances between buildings, with particular attention to the right of view. Article 907 of the Civil Code establishes that openings allowing a view into a neighbor's property cannot be constructed without respecting minimum distances. The Court of Cassation, through this ordinance, clarifies that ownership of the right of view is a necessary condition for exercising an action to enforce compliance with distances.

Action aimed at ensuring compliance with distances provided for by Article 907 of the Civil Code - Ownership of the real right of view - Nature - Condition of the action - Consequences - Factual circumstances. Ownership of the real right of view constitutes a condition for the action aimed at obtaining the neighbor's observance of the distances referred to in Article 907 of the Civil Code and, as such, must be ascertained ex officio by the judge, unless the defendant has made an explicit or implicit, but unequivocal, admission of the existence of such a right. (In this case, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment that had granted the claim based on the mere failure of the defendant to contest the "lawfulness of the right of view," despite the absence of a complete and specific allegation of the title forming the basis of the alleged right).

Consequences of the Ruling

One of the most significant consequences of this ruling is the importance of ascertaining ownership of the right of view. The Court emphasized that, in the absence of clear proof of the existence of such a right, the judge cannot proceed without a thorough analysis. This implies that, for the owner of a property, it is crucial to demonstrate their right of view before initiating legal action.

• The right of view is subject to well-defined legal distances.
• Ownership of this right must be ascertained ex officio by the judge.
• Failure by the defendant to contest is not sufficient to validate the right of view.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 21798 of 2024 represents an important clarification regarding the right of view and legal distances. It reminds all property owners of the importance of having clear documentation regarding their rights and the consequences of failing to make proper allegations in judicial proceedings. This ruling not only affects the resolution of neighborly disputes but also establishes a significant precedent for future controversies concerning property and real rights.