Analysis of Judgment No. 39602 of 2024: Order of Demolition and Sanctioning Measures

The recent judgment No. 39602 of October 3, 2024, by the Court of Appeal of Naples addresses a highly relevant issue in the field of building regulations: the matter of the order of demolition of unlawful constructions and the impact of sanctioning measures issued after the finalization of the condemnation judgment. In particular, the Court declared the request for suspension of the demolition order inadmissible, highlighting that the issuance of a sanctioning title does not prevent its execution, especially if the beneficiary was not the owner of the property at the time of construction.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

This ruling fits into a complex regulatory framework, which includes the DPR 380/2001 and Law 47/1985, which detail the procedures for urban planning and the fight against building abuses. In particular, the sanctioning measure, although it may seem like a safe conduct for unlawful constructions, must be carefully evaluated in terms of legitimacy and ownership of the right. The Court reiterated that the sanction granted to non-owners cannot influence the demolition order, which remains valid and enforceable.

Summary of the Judgment and Commentary

Order of demolition - Sanctioning measure - Issued, after the final judgment of the condemnation, in favor of subjects who are not owners of the property and do not have qualified relationships with it - Exclusion of relevance. In terms of building crimes, the issuance of a sanctioning title in favor of a subject who was not the owner of the property at the time of construction and who has no legally qualified real or obligatory relationship with it does not prevent the execution of the order of demolition of an unlawful construction.

This summary encapsulates the core of the decision. It clarifies that, once the unlawful nature of a construction has been established, any subsequent sanction granted does not affect the legitimacy of the demolition order. Therefore, even if a subject receives a sanctioning measure, if they were not the owner and have no legal ties to the property at the time of construction, they cannot oppose the demolition order.
Below are some key points to consider:

• The sanctioning measure cannot be used as a shield to avoid the demolition of unlawful works.
• The ownership of the property at the time of construction is fundamental for the legitimacy of the building intervention.
• Previous jurisprudential decisions support this interpretation, reiterating the necessity to comply with urban planning regulations.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 39602 of 2024 represents an important clarification in building matters, emphasizing the importance of ownership and legitimacy in the management of unlawful constructions. In a context where building abuses are a persistent problem, the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Naples stands as a significant step towards ensuring compliance with regulations and protecting the territory. Sector operators and citizens must be aware that sanctioning measures cannot overlook violations of building laws and that the demolition order remains a fundamental tool for the regularization of abuses.