Judgment No. 14631 of 2024 and the Partial Review of Building Offenses

In the recent judgment No. 14631 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, a topic of great relevance in the field of building law is addressed: the possibility of requesting a partial review of a conviction related to portions of a building unlawfully constructed. The Court, with a strict interpretation of the current legislation, reiterated that a partial review of the sentencing judgment is not permitted, establishing a fundamental principle for cases of building abuses.

The Context of the Judgment

The central issue of the judgment concerns the request for a partial review of the conviction by F. P., accused of having carried out building works without permission. The Court excluded the possibility of a review limited to portions of the building, arguing that the building offense is unique and indivisible. This position was supported in light of previous case law and current regulations, which require a comprehensive view of the building subject to conviction.

Building offenses - Partial review of the conviction related to portions of unlawfully constructed building - Admissibility - Exclusion - Reasons - Case. In the matter of building offenses, a partial review of the sentencing judgment is not permitted, as it relates only to certain portions of the unlawfully constructed building, given that the offense committed is unique. (In the case where the Court, in light of the alleged possibility of regularization of a mere fraction of the building, claimed to have been completed by March 31, 2003, excluded the possibility of such extraordinary remedy due to the subsequent illegal construction of additional works and the necessary reference of the regularization to the building in its entirety).

Legal Implications

The decision of the Court of Cassation has several significant legal implications:

  • Uniqueness of the offense: The Court reiterated that a partial review cannot be accepted, as the building offense is considered a unique offense.
  • Regularization: The issue of the regularization of building works is complex and must be evaluated in relation to the entire building, rather than to individual portions.
  • Consolidated case law: The judgment fits into a line of case law that tends to protect the territory and ensure compliance with building regulations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 14631 of 2024 represents an important reference for the regulation of building offenses and for the management of review requests. The Court of Cassation clarified that violations of building law cannot be fragmented and that each request for review must take into account the entire regulatory and case law context. This position is fundamental to ensure a correct application of the laws and to protect the integrity of the building heritage and the territory.

Bianucci Law Firm