Judgment No. 20270 of 2022: Offenses in Seismic Zones and Autonomy of Offense Types

Judgment No. 20270 of 2022 represents an important ruling by the Court of Cassation regarding offenses in the construction sector, particularly concerning seismic zones. This decision clarifies the distinction between two types of offenses provided by the d.P.R. June 6, 2001, No. 380, namely the failure to provide written notice and the execution of works without authorization. Through a thorough analysis, the Court highlighted how the two violations are autonomous and based on different premises.

Distinction Between Offense Types

The crux of the ruling lies in the differentiation between the offenses referred to in Articles 93 and 94 of d.P.R. No. 380/2001. On one hand, Article 93 establishes the obligation to provide written notice for the execution of construction work in a seismic zone; on the other hand, Article 94 establishes the obligation to obtain authorization before starting work.

Offenses for failure to provide written notice of the execution of construction work in a seismic zone and for executing the work in that zone in the absence of authorization - Autonomy of offense types - Existence - Premises - Differences. The offenses for failure to provide written notice of the execution of construction work in a seismic zone and for executing the work in that zone in the absence of the required authorization, as provided for in Articles 93 and 94 of d.P.R. June 6, 2001, No. 380, are distinct from each other and are based on different premises, with Article 94-bis of the aforementioned d.P.R. providing that the obligation to give notice ceases only in the case of "non-substantial variations" and that the obligation to wait for the issuance of authorization before commencing work ceases, instead, in the broader context of "less significant" or "insignificant" interventions.

Premises and Sanctions

The Court emphasized that the obligation of notice does not apply in the case of non-substantial variations, while the obligation to obtain authorization can be waived for minor or insignificant interventions. This implies that not all violations necessarily result in a sanction, but the assessment of the significance of the construction intervention is fundamental. It is important to note that the case law has already addressed similar cases, and the ruling in question fits into a trend of strict interpretation of regulations in the construction sector.

  • Article 93: Obligation of notice for interventions in seismic zones.
  • Article 94: Obligation of authorization before starting work.
  • Article 94-bis: Exemptions for non-substantial variations and minor interventions.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 20270 of 2022 represents a fundamental piece in understanding the sanctioning system in construction within seismic zones. The autonomy of offense types and the distinction between the premises of each violation offer a clearer regulatory framework for industry operators and legal professionals. It is crucial that anyone undertaking construction work in such areas is aware of these obligations and possible sanctions to avoid legal issues and ensure the structural safety of buildings.

Bianucci Law Firm