Judgment no. 18765 of 2024: Automatic forfeiture in public housing allocation

The recent order no. 18765 of July 9, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue in public residential building: the continued possession of the non-ownership requirement for housing allocation. This judgment is part of a legal context of great importance, establishing principles that can significantly influence the fate of many allottees.

Legal context and the Court's decision

The Court annulled a previous decision by the Court of Appeal of Rome which had examined the case of M. (D. C. F.) against R., highlighting that the non-ownership requirement must be maintained for the entire period of allocation. According to Article 11, paragraph 1, letter c), of Regional Law Lazio no. 12 of 1999, the loss of this requirement leads to automatic forfeiture of the housing allocation.

Art. 11, paragraph 1, letter c), of Regional Law Lazio no. 12 of 1999 - Maintenance of the non-ownership requirement for the entire duration of the relationship - Necessity - Subsequent loss of the requirement - Consequences - Automatic forfeiture of the allottee - Moment of ascertainment by the administrative authority - Relevance - Exclusion - Basis. In the matter of public residential building, the non-ownership requirement, referred to in art. 11, paragraph 1, letter c), of Regional Law Lazio no. 12 of 1999, must be maintained for the entire duration of the relationship, with the consequence that its subsequent loss leads to automatic forfeiture of the housing allocation, regardless of the moment in which the administrative authority ascertains the (non-)existence of the requirements, given that the forfeiture ruling has a merely declarative value of the extinction "by law" of the previous allocation, which has already occurred at the very moment the cause for forfeiture materialized.

Implications of the judgment

The judgment emphasizes that forfeiture from allocation is not linked to the timing of the ascertainment by the administrative authority, but occurs automatically at the moment the non-ownership requirement ceases to be met. This principle is of particular importance as it ensures fairness and transparency in the management of public housing, protecting the interests of those who genuinely need it.

• Reinforces the concept of the allottee's responsibility.
• Establishes a legal precedent for future similar cases.
• Clarifies the task of authorities in monitoring allocation requirements.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 18765 of 2024 represents an important reference point in public residential building law, reiterating the need to maintain the non-ownership requirement for the entire duration of the allocation relationship. The decision of the Court of Cassation not only clarifies the rights and duties of allottees but also offers greater legal certainty for the competent authorities. This regulatory clarification is essential to ensure that public resources are allocated to those who genuinely need them, preventing abuses and ensuring fair use of public housing.