Building Violations in Seismic Zones: The Court of Cassation and the Permanent Nature of the Offence (Judgment no. 19871/2025)

Building safety, especially in seismic risk areas, is a fundamental principle of our legal system. Every construction intervention must comply with stringent regulations for public safety. The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 19871, filed on May 28, 2025, has clarified the legal nature of the contraventions relating to the omission of notification and the commencement of works without authorization in seismic areas, pursuant to Presidential Decree no. 380/2001. This ruling is of great interest to professionals and private individuals, defining the implications of criminal liability.

Obligations and Violations: Presidential Decree 380/2001 and Judgment 19871/2025

The case examined by the Supreme Court concerned violations of anti-seismic regulations, in particular Articles 93, 94, and 95 of Presidential Decree no. 380 of June 6, 2001 (Consolidated Text on Construction). These regulations impose precise obligations on those operating in seismic zones: prior notification of works, submission of structural plans, and obtaining authorization before commencing works. Non-compliance with these provisions constitutes an offence, the seriousness of which is proportional to the risk to human life and building integrity. The judgment, with rapporteur Dr. A. G. and president Dr. V. D. N., reiterated a key principle for public safety.

The Permanent Offence: A Crucial Characteristic

The core of judgment no. 19871/2025 lies in the assertion that the contraventions in question are of a 'permanent offence' nature. The violation of the protected legal interest (public safety) persists over time. The commission of the offence does not occur with the mere commencement of works without authorization, but continues as long as the unlawful conduct persists. In anti-seismic violations, the offense continues as long as the unauthorized or unreported work remains in place, exposing the community to constant danger. This distinction is crucial for criminal liability and the statute of limitations.

In relation to violations of anti-seismic regulations, the contravention referred to in art. 95 of Presidential Decree of June 6, 2001, no. 380, when it concerns the omission of notification of works and submission of plans and the commencement of works without prior authorization, in violation of the obligations established by arts. 93 and 94 of the aforementioned Presidential Decree, constitutes a 'continuing offence' ('consumazione prolungata'), having the nature of a permanent offence, whose commission persists due to the ongoing violation of the protected interest of public safety and ceases with the fulfillment of the aforementioned legal obligations by the interested party, or with the completion of the works.

This maxim from the Court of Cassation is of fundamental importance. It clarifies that the offence is not exhausted at the moment construction begins without permits, but continues to exist every day that the illegal work persists. The 'protected interest' is 'public safety', i.e., the safety of all citizens. As long as the building is not compliant or has not been regularized, the danger remains, and with it, the unlawful conduct. The offence only ceases when the interested party regularizes the situation, notifying the works and submitting the plans, or upon completion of the works, assuming in this case a subsequent regularization or intervention by the authorities.

Consequences for the Statute of Limitations and Specific Obligations

The permanent nature of the offence has direct implications for the statute of limitations. Article 157 of the Criminal Code establishes that for permanent offences, the limitation period begins to run from the day on which the permanence has ceased. This means that, as long as the illegal work in a seismic zone is not regularized or completed, the period for the statute of limitations does not begin to run, prolonging criminal vulnerability. The Court of Cassation has consistently reiterated this principle. Typical violations that constitute the offence include:

• Omission of notification of works to the Regional Technical Office.
• Failure to submit structural plans.
• Commencement of works without seismic authorization.

Conclusions: Prevention, Regularization, and Legal Protection

Judgment no. 19871/2025 of the Court of Cassation reinforces the imperative to comply with anti-seismic regulations. The classification of contraventions under Articles 93, 94, and 95 of Presidential Decree no. 380/2001 as permanent offences serves as a clear warning: building safety is an indispensable value, and its violation entails a responsibility that extends over time. Acting with diligence, obtaining authorizations, and submitting the required documentation before commencing any work in seismic zones is fundamental. Timely regularization prevents criminal sanctions and protects people's lives and safety. Our Law Firm is available for consultation in construction and urban planning law.