Judgment no. 20270 of 2022: Offences in Seismic Zones and Autonomy of Offences

Judgment no. 20270 of 2022 represents an important ruling by the Court of Cassation concerning building offences, particularly regarding seismic zones. This decision clarifies the distinction between two types of offences provided for by Presidential Decree no. 380 of 6 June 2001, namely the failure to provide written notice and the carrying out of works without authorisation. Through in-depth analysis, the Court has highlighted how the two violations are autonomous and based on different prerequisites.

Distinction Between Offences

The core of the judgment lies in the differentiation between the offences referred to in Articles 93 and 94 of Presidential Decree no. 380/2001. On the one hand, Article 93 provides for the obligation of written notice for the execution of building works in a seismic zone; on the other hand, Article 94 establishes the obligation to obtain authorisation before commencing works.

Offences of failure to provide written notice of the execution of building works in a seismic zone and of carrying out works in such a zone without authorisation - Autonomy of offences - Existence - Prerequisites - Differences. The offences of failure to provide written notice of the execution of building works in a seismic zone and of carrying out works in such a zone without the required authorisation, respectively provided for by Articles 93 and 94 of Presidential Decree no. 380 of 6 June 2001, are distinct from each other and are based on different prerequisites, with Article 94-bis of the aforementioned Presidential Decree stipulating that the obligation to give notice is waived only in cases of "non-substantial variations" and that the obligation to await the issuance of authorisation before commencing works is waived, instead, in the broader scope of works of "minor relevance" or "irrelevant".

Prerequisites and Sanctions

The Court has emphasised that the obligation to provide notice does not apply in cases of non-substantial variations, while the obligation to obtain authorisation may be waived for minor or irrelevant works. This implies that not all violations necessarily lead to a sanction, but the assessment of the relevance of the building works is fundamental. It is important to note that case law has already dealt with similar cases, and the judgment in question is part of a line of rigorous interpretation of building regulations.

• Art. 93: Obligation of notice for works in seismic zones.
• Art. 94: Obligation of authorisation before commencing works.
• Art. 94-bis: Exemptions for non-substantial variations and minor works.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 20270 of 2022 represents a fundamental piece in understanding the building sanctioning system in seismic zones. The autonomy of the offences and the distinction between the prerequisites for each violation offer a clearer regulatory framework for operators in the sector and legal professionals. It is crucial that anyone undertaking building works in these areas is aware of these obligations and possible sanctions, to avoid legal problems and ensure the structural safety of buildings.