Commentary on Judgment No. 36580 of 2023: Building Abuse and Regularization in Protected Areas

Judgment No. 36580 of May 17, 2023, represents an important reference point regarding building abuses carried out in areas subject to landscape protection. In this decision, the Court clarified the differences between the regularization procedure and that for prior landscape authorization, establishing a stricter regulatory framework for building violations in such areas.

The Regulatory Context

The building regularization procedure, in cases of abuses committed in protected areas, is governed by Article 32 of Law No. 47 of February 28, 1985. According to this provision, the Superintendency is required to express an opinion based on a spatium deliberandi of 180 days, unlike the 45-day period provided for preventive authorizations. This extension of time is due to the need for a thorough examination of cases of abuse already committed.

The Implications of the Judgment

Building abuse carried out in an area subject to landscape protection - Request for regularization - Opinion of the Superintendency - Procedure - Differences compared to the procedure for granting prior landscape authorization - Indication - Reasons. In terms of building offenses, if the abuse occurs in an area subject to landscape protection, the administrative procedure for issuing the regularization authorization, due to the already committed criminal offense, is governed with greater rigor, requiring that the Superintendency, for the formulation of the opinion within its competence, prescribed by Article 32, paragraph 1, Law No. 47 of February 28, 1985, benefit from a "spatium deliberandi" broader than that assigned to it by Article 146 of Legislative Decree No. 42 of January 22, 2004, for the issuance of prior landscape authorization (180 days, instead of 45) and that the unsuccessful passage of this term constitutes a silence-refusal, which can be challenged before the administrative judge.

This judgment highlights how the rigor of the regularization procedure is justified by the need to protect the landscape heritage, establishing clear guidelines for cases of abuse. The differences between the two procedures are significant and directly influence the possibilities of obtaining regularization for building abuses.

Final Considerations

In conclusion, Judgment No. 36580 of 2023 fits into a legal context that seeks to balance the right to property with the protection of landscape heritage. Italian and European regulations on environmental and landscape matters place a strong emphasis on the prevention and repression of abuses, making legal advice essential for those facing such situations.

Bianucci Law Firm