Judgment No. 37245 of 2024: The Legitimacy of the Demolition Order in Case of Prescription

Judgment No. 37245 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications regarding building crimes, particularly concerning the demolition order of construction works. This ruling is set within a legal context characterized by increasing attention to construction regularity and the protection of the territory.

The Issue of the Demolition Order

In this case, the defendant, C. R., was confronted with a demolition order concerning the completion of a previous construction abuse declared extinguished due to prescription. The Court determined that, despite the extinction due to prescription of the abuse, the demolition order must be executed on the property in its entirety.

Building crimes - Demolition order - Works of completion and/or continuation of previous construction abuses declared extinguished due to prescription with consequent revocation of the demolition order - Extension of the demolition order to the entire structure - Legitimacy - Reasons. The demolition order resulting from the conviction judgment, provided for by art. 31, paragraph 9, d.P.R. June 6, 2001, No. 380, even if related to construction interventions of continuation or completion of a previous abuse declared extinguished due to prescription and regarding which the previous demolition order had been revoked, must still be executed on the property considered in its entirety. (In the reasoning, the Court specified that the intervening declaration of prescription does not result in a favorable judgment for the defendant).

Implications of the Ruling

The ruling underscores the importance of the rigorous application of building regulations and adherence to the procedures established by d.P.R. June 6, 2001, No. 380. The Court emphasized that the declaration of prescription does not equate to an acquittal of the defendant but implies that the construction abuse persists, and therefore the demolition order remains legitimate.

  • Prescription does not eliminate the building crime but merely extinguishes its punishability.
  • The demolition order must consider the property in its entirety, even if part of it has been renovated or completed subsequently.
  • It is essential for property owners to understand the legal implications of any building abuses, even in the case of prescription.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 37245 of 2024 represents an important reference for jurisprudence regarding building crimes. It clarifies that the demolition order cannot be limited to individual parts of the property but must be implemented comprehensively. In a context where the protection of the territory is increasingly central, it is essential for citizens to be aware of the legal consequences of any building abuses and the applicable regulations.

Bianucci Law Firm