Case law

LA DISTRUZIONE DELL'EDIFICIO FA VENIRE MENO IL VINCOLO CULTURALE: SENTENZA TAR MILANO N. 1222 DEL 23.5.2023

Pubblichiamo la sentenza del TAR Milano n. 1222 del 23.5.2023, con la quale viene chiarito che, in caso di distruzione di un edificio oggetto di vincolo culturale, il vincolo stesso cessa di esistere e non passa automaticamente all'edificio ricostruito.
Il caso affrontato dalla sentenza è quello di un edificio sottoposto a vincolo culturale andato interamente distrutto durante i bombardamenti della seconda guerra mondiale. L'edificio era stato successivamente ricostruito, ma mai sottoposto a nuovo vincolo. Con riferimento a una pratica di condono edilizio, il Comune e la Soprintendenza sostenevano che l'originario vincolo dell'edificio distrutto doveva ritenersi apposto anche all'edificio ricostruito. Il TAR ha giudicato illegittima tale posizione.



sentenza

RESPONSABILITA’ IN MATERIA DI INQUINAMENTO: ORDINANZA DEL CONSIGLIO DI STATO N. 5565 DEL 25.11.2022

Pubblichiamo l’ordinanza cautelare del Consiglio di Stato n. 5565 del 25.11.2022, con cui è stata rigettata la richiesta del Comune appellante di sospensione degli effetti della sentenza del TAR Milano n. 1761 del 20.7.2022, già pubblicata in questo sito. La vicenda riguarda l’obbligo di eseguire indagini preliminari per verificare lo stato di una discarica ante norma (anni Settanta) e l’eventuale necessità di interventi di bonifica.
Il Consiglio di Stato non si è limitato a rigettare l’istanza cautelare per assenza del pregiudizio grave e irreparabile, ma ha altresì ritenuto l’appello privo dell’ulteriore requisito del fumus boni iuris per la concessione della misura richiesta. L’ordinanza contiene un invito all’Amministrazione competente ad effettuare un’approfondita istruttoria, necessaria «al fine di individuare il reale responsabile dell’inquinamento». Il Giudice di secondo grado pare, quindi, anticipare una pronuncia di rigetto nel merito e di conferma della sentenza di primo grado, secondo cui gli attuali proprietari – iure hereditatis - di un’area adibita a discarica negli anni Settanta non possono essere chiamati a rispondere per una possibile contaminazione, considerato che la gestione della discarica era stata affidata dagli allora proprietari – e danti causa degli attuali - a soggetti terzi.



sentenza

INTERESSI E SANZIONI SUGLI ONERI DI URBANIZZAZIONE: SENTENZA DEL CONSIGLIO DI STATO N. 7332/2021 DEL 3.11.2021

Pubblichiamo la sentenza del Consiglio di Stato n. 7332/2021 del 3.11.2021, che ha affrontato il caso di un piano di lottizzazione nell’ambito del quale - per impossibilità oggettiva (pregressa situazione di inquinamento - l’operatore privato non aveva potuto eseguire le opere di urbanizzazione secondaria a scomputo.

E aveva quindi sostituito tale obbligazione, prevista in convenzione, con il versamento degli oneri.

A fronte di tale sostituzione, tuttavia, il Comune aveva applicato all’operatore gli interessi sugli oneri di urbanizzazione, decorrenti dal rilascio del titolo edilizio per l’edificazione privata, e anche la sanzione per il ritardato pagamento degli stessi.

Il Consiglio di Stato, in riforma della sentenza del TAR Milano, ha accertato come illegittima l’applicazione degli interessi sugli oneri di urbanizzazione, in considerazione dell’impossibilità oggettiva di realizzazione delle opere a scomputo, e dell’assenza di colpa al riguardo da parte dell’operatore.

Per le stesse ragioni è stata confermata la declaratoria di illegittimità della sanzione, già stabilita in primo grado (sul punto è stato respinto l’appello incidentale del Comune).



sentenza

AMMISSIBILE LA SANATORIA EDILIZIA PARZIALE SE LE OPERE SONO DISTINTE E AUTONOME: SENTENZA TAR MILANO N. 2575/2020 DEL 22.12.2020

Pubblichiamo la sentenza del TAR Milano n. 2575/2020 del 22.12.2020, che ha annullato un diniego di condono assunto con riferimento a una istanza che aveva quale oggetto una pluralità di opere abusive, tra loro distinte e autonome.

Il Comune aveva ravvisato l’esistenza di un motivo ostativo al rilascio del condono con riferimento a una sola di tali opere,ma aveva rigettato il condono nella sua interezza.

Il TAR, riconoscendo l’autonomia delle opere oggetto dell’istanza, ha statuito che la ragione ostativa indicata dal Comune e relativa a una sola di tali opere non è idonea a inficiare l’istanza stessa relativamente agli altri abusi. In tali casi, dunque, è ammessa la sanatoria parziale.



sentenza

FABBRICATO ADIBITO A RICOVERO ANIMALI E DISTANZE: SENTENZA TAR BRESCIA N.824/2020 DEL 24.11.2020

Pubblichiamo la sentenza del TAR Brescia n. 824/2020 del 24.11.2020, che ha confermato la legittimità del permesso di costruire rilasciato per un intervento di ampliamento di un fabbricato adibito a ricovero di animali.

Tra le statuizioni contenute nella sentenza segnaliamo quella che, ai fini delle distanze, ha riconosciuto la non rilevanza delle strutture non destinate alla stabile permanenza di animali o allo stoccaggio di reflui.



sentenza

NON NECESSARIO IL PIANO ATTUATIVO SE L’AREA E’ GIA’ URBANIZZATA: SENTENZA TAR MILANO N. 1413/2020 DEL 22.7.2020

Pubblichiamo la sentenza del TAR Milano n. 1413/2020 del 22.7.2020 sulla necessità di ricorrere a un preventivo piano attuativo in presenza di un’area già urbanizzata.

A seguito di verificazione, che ha accertato l’adeguatezza dell’urbanizzazione all’epoca del rilascio dei titoli edilizi, il TAR ha aderito “all’orientamento espresso dalla Giurisprudenza del Consiglio di Stato secondo cui lo strumento attuativo non è, comunque, necessario in presenza del rispetto sostanziale degli standard”.



sentenza

ILLEGITTIMO IL SOVRADIMENSIONAMENTO DELLA DOTAZIONE DEGLI STANDARD URBANISTICI NON SUPPORTATO DA IDONEA MOTIVAZIONE: SENTENZA TAR MILANO N. 305/20 DEL 13.2.2020

Segnaliamo la sentenza del TAR Milano n. 305/20, pubblicata il 13.2.2020, che ha annullato in parte qua un PGT per sovradimensionamento della dotazione degli standard non supportata da idonea motivazione. Il PGT impugnato prevedeva una dotazione di standard di 85 mq/abitante, ampiamente superiore sia alla dotazione minima di Legge (18 mq/abitante) sia alla dotazione del precedente strumento urbanistico generale (68 mq/abitante). Il tutto, però, senza fornire un’adeguata motivazione a sostegno. In considerazione di ciò, il TAR ha disposto l’annullamento in parte qua del PGT, evidenziando che il Comune è tenuto a motivare in maniera idonea e congrua sulle ragioni dell’aumento degli standard rispetto alle previsioni normative, e che, in caso contrario, tale scelta risulta illegittima.



REVOCA PIANO ATTUATIVO E CONVENZIONE URBANISTICA: SENTENZA TAR MILANO N. 2734/19 DEL 23.12.2019

Segnaliamo la sentenza del TAR Milano n. 2734/19, pubblicata il 23.12.2019. La pronuncia, resa al termine di un articolato giudizio, annulla, unitamente agli atti connessi e conseguenti, una delibera di Consiglio Comunale che aveva disposto la revoca di un piano attuativo approvato e convenzionato. Tra le statuizioni contenute nella sentenza evidenziamo, innanzitutto, quella secondo cui la revoca dell’atto di approvazione di un piano attuativo conforme allo strumento urbanistico generale presuppone una variante allo strumento generale stesso. E non una semplice comunicazione di avvio del relativo procedimento, come avvenuto nella fattispecie decisa. La revoca di un piano attuativo, poi, produce necessariamente effetti anche rispetto alle obbligazioni pattuite in sede di convenzione a favore dell’Amministrazione. Il Comune interessato non aveva considerato ciò, nonostante la convenzione sottoscritta avesse disposto a suo favore il passaggio di proprietà di immobili e aree. Infine, quanto alla natura delle convenzioni urbanistiche, la sentenza in commento conferma la giurisprudenza secondo cui nelle stesse risulta prevalente il profilo della libera negoziazione retta dalle norme del Codice Civile. Il tutto con la conseguenza che, anche laddove il riequilibrio delle previsioni della convenzione si rendesse necessario al fine di assicurare il rispetto di disposizioni normative sopravvenute, ciò non potrebbe avvenire sulla base di un intervento unilaterale e autoritativo dell’Amministrazione, ma soltanto a esito della rinegoziazione fra le parti.



ONERI DI URBANIZZAZIONE E CONDONO EDILIZIO: SENTENZA CONSIGLIO DI STATO N. 7682/19 DELL’11.11.2019

Segnaliamo la sentenza del Consiglio di Stato n. 7682/19, pubblicata l’11.11.2019, in materia di oneri di urbanizzazione del condono edilizio.La sentenza del Giudice di appello ha confermato, rispetto alla sentenza di primo grado, che il condono edilizio si perfeziona per silenzio – assenso in presenza (oltre che di documentazione completa, questione questa non contestata in causa) del pagamento integrale degli oneri di urbanizzazione. Tali oneri sono quelli autoderminati dalla parte privata nell’istanza di condono. In caso di condono perfezionatosi per silenzio – assenso, gli oneri di urbanizzazione devono essere applicati nella misura vigente all’atto del perfezionamento stesso, risultando irrilevanti aumenti successivamente intervenuti.



SANZIONE PER OMESSO VERSAMENTO CONTRIBUTO DI COSTRUZIONE: SENTENZA TAR MILANO N. 2270/19 DEL 28.10.2019

Segnaliamo la sentenza del TAR Milano n. 2270/2019, pubblicata in data 28.10.2019, che ha annullato la sanzione assunta da un Comune per omesso versamento del contributo di costruzione, ai sensi dell’art. 42 DPR 380/2001. Nella fattispecie decisa, la parte privata aveva versato, a titolo di contributo di costruzione, la somma richiesta dal Comune a mezzo di un provvedimento specifico. Il Comune aveva provveduto successivamente a rivedere in aumento l’importo dovuto, richiedendo al privato sia la differenza con il versato sia la sanzione per omesso pagamento di tale differenza. Il TAR ha annullato la sanzione, in quanto il pagamento, pur oggettivamente inesatto, era comunque conforme alla richiesta di pagamento dell’Amministrazione, mancando così i presupposti della sanzione: dolo, colpa (anche nella forma della imprudenza e della negligenza) e comunque rimproverabilità del destinatario.



PARZIALE INCOSTITUZIONALITA’ DELLA LEGGE REGIONALE LOMBARDA (TESTO PREVIGENTE) SUL CONSUMO DEL SUOLO: SENTENZA CORTE COSTITUZIONALE N. 179/19 DEL 16.7.2019

Segnaliamo la sentenza della Corte Costituzionale n. 179/19, depositata in data 16.7.2019, sulla LR Lombarda n. 31/2014 in materia di consumo del suolo. E' stato dichiarato incostituzionale il testo originario - poi modificato dalla LR 16/2017 - dell'ultimo periodo dell'art. 5, comma 4, nella parte in cui non consentiva ai Comuni di approvare nel regime transitorio varianti in riduzione delle previsioni dei Documenti di Piano vigenti. Ciò in quanto la competenza in materia di pianificazione urbanistica del territorio spetta ai Comuni.



ILLEGITTIMO IL SOVRADIMENSIONAMENTO DELLA DOTAZIONE DEGLI STANDARD URBANISTICI NON SUPPORTATO DA IDONEA MOTIVAZIONE: SENTENZA TAR BRESCIA N. 502/19 DEL 20.5.2019

Segnaliamo la sentenza del TAR Brescia n. 502/19, depositata in data 20.5.2019, che ha annullato in parte qua un PGT che prevedeva, per un Ambito di Trasformazione del Documento di Piano, una dotazione di standard superiore a quella di Legge in assenza di adeguata motivazione a sostegno della scelta. Il TAR, in particolare, ha incentrato la propria decisione sulla stima di incremento della popolazione rapportata non soltanto alla popolazione residente ma anche agli addetti gravitanti sul territorio; stima, questa, non rivelante “profili motivazionali ... suscettibili di rendere siffatta proiezione prognostica obiettivamente apprezzabile”.



CONTRIBUTO DI COSTRUZIONE E SPAZI NON COMPUTATI IN TERMINI DI VOLUMETRIA: SENTENZA TAR MILANO N. 867/19 DEL 17.4.2019

Segnaliamo la sentenza del TAR Milano n. 867/19, depositata il 17.4.2019, che ha chiarito che uno spazio non computabile in termini di volumetria non può essere assoggettato al pagamento del contributo di costruzione. Nella fattispecie decisa con la sentenza in commento si trattava di spazi destinati al ricovero e alla sosta delle autovetture. Pur non essendo stati tali spazi computati ai fini della volumetria dell’edificio al quale accedevano, il Comune aveva richiesto il pagamento del contributo di costruzione. Ma la richiesta è stata giudicata illegittima dal TAR.



ALLA REGIONE LA MANUTENZIONE DEGLI ARGINI DI UN CORSO D’ACQUA: SENTENZA TRIBUNALE SUPERIORE DELLE ACQUE PUBBLICHE N. 17/19 DEL 9.1.2019

Segnaliamo la sentenza del Tribunale Superiore delle Acque Pubbliche n. 17/19, depositata il 9.1.2019, che ha statuito che spetta alla Regione la manutenzione degli argini di un corso d’acqua rientrante nel Reticolo Idrico Maggiore. I privati sono tenuti unicamente alla costruzione e alla cura delle opere a difesa dei loro beni e che siano di loro esclusiva utilità.



ONERI DI URBANIZZAZIONE E CONDONO EDILIZIO: SENTENZA CONSIGLIO DI STATO N. 5808/18 DEL 9.10.2018

Segnaliamo la sentenza del Consiglio di Stato n. 5808/18, depositata il 9.10.2018, in materia di oneri di urbanizzazione del condono edilizio. La sentenza del Giudice di appello, confermando quella di primo grado del TAR Milano, ha ribadito che il condono edilizio si perfeziona per silenzio – assenso in presenza di documentazione completa e di pagamento integrale degli oneri di urbanizzazione. Questi ultimi devono essere applicati nella misura vigente all’atto del perfezionamento del silenzio – assenso, risultando irrilevanti aumenti successivamente intervenuti.



EXPROPRIATION AND OCCUPATION COMPENSATION: ORDER N. 943/2019 OF THE APPEAL COURT OF MILAN


Herewith is published order n. 934/2019 dated 4.3.2019 of the Appeal Court of Milan regarding the quantification of expropriation and occupation compensation.
The Appeal Court of Milan has redetermined the compensation for expropriation quantified by the Provincial Expropriation Commission of Milan and has determined compensation for occupation, regarding the expropriation and occupation of an area used as parking by a business company, in order to create a new trackway.
Such has involved the evaluation of other compensation issues (i.e. depreciation of the remaining area, in accordance with article 33 of Presidential Decree 327/2001), not recognized by the Provincial Expropriation Commission.
From a compensation point of view, the issued referred to the fallout of new rights-of-way for the building of a new trackway. It determined the impossibility to use the remaining volume, in expropriated company’s remaining property, allowed by the on-going urban regulation.
In detail, by rejecting the objections proposed by the adverse party concerning the non-compensability of the rights-of-way, the Court recognized the indemnities connected with the reduced usability of the parking areas, essential for the business activity in the area, and the decrease in the building volume. Consequently, it has also recognized the relative loss of value of the residual area, identified as a further indemnity item by the aforementioned art. 33 of the Presidential Decree 327/2001.

decision

BUILDING AMNESTY AND CULTURAL-HISTORICAL BOND: SENTENCE N. 417/2018 OF TAR OF MILAN


Below is published the decision of the Regional Administrative Tribunal (TAR) of Milan, n. 417/2018 dated 13.2.2018 regarding amnesty for infringement of building regulations, specifically change of intended use without any works in a building of historical and cultural significance.
The Municipality had rejected the amnesty request due to the restriction.
The TAR nullified the rejection, in consideration of the fact that the change of intended use was done without any works and with approval by the Authority.

decision

BROADCASTING ANTENNA: SENTENCE N. 1916/2017 OF TAR OF CATANZARO


Below is published the decision of the Regional Administrative Tribunale (TAR) of Catanzaro n. 1916 dated 11.12.2017 regarding broadcasting antenna.
The decision holds void the rejection to authorize the realization of the antenna, above all, because the Municipality did not identify, prior to the rejection, the reasons for rejecting the authorization, pursuant to art. 10 of Legislative Decree 241/1990.
Furthermore, the rejection is held void for violation of certain market regulations (art. 86 and 87 of the Legislative Decree 59/2003 - Electronic Communication Code), in such that the Municipality does not have the power to deny authorization only on the basis of the limitations deriving from town development plans.

decision

SANCTIONS FOR LATE PAYMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION: SENTENCE OF THE STATE COUNCIL N. 3965/2017


Below is published the decision of the Council of State n. 3965/2017 dated 9.8.2017, regarding sanctions for late payment of the construction contribution established by Art. 42 Presidential Decree 380/2001.
In the matter at issue, the Company had lost in the first and second degree, which stated the legitimacy of the Municipal Order to pay certain amounts as urbanization costs.
The main point of the matter is that the Company, despite having lost in the merit of the issue, obtained the precautionary suspension of the appealed order of payment both from the Regional Administrative Tribunal and from the State Court.
Upon conclusion of such second degree judgment, the Company has paid to the Municipality the amounts which were ascertained by the court.
However, notwithstanding the precautionary suspension of the order of payment, the Municipality requested the payment also of the sanction for delayed payment on the ground of Art. 42 Presidential Decree 280/2001 equal to 40% of the overdue amount.
Against such sanction, the Company filed an appeal before the Regional Administrative Tribunal and the result was once again unsuccessful.
With the court decision at issue, the Appeal Court Consiglio has entirely nulled the court decision of first degree, stating that "the factual principle on the basis of which the sanction under Art. 42 may be levied is the delay", and, in the case at issue, "pursuant to the precautionary suspension decree issued before the amount to be paid become overdue, there was no delay in the payment for the purpose of the sanction".

decision

BUILDING AMNESTY AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION: SENTENCE N. 168/2017 OF TAR OF MILAN


Below is published the decision of the Regional Administrative Tribunal (T.A.R.) of Lombardy - Milan, Section II, n. 1681 dated 26.7.2017, concerning urbanisation work costs and the cost for building amnesty.
The subject matter of the decision concerns amnesty of the offices of a hotel.
For such areas, the Municipality calculated the urbanisation work costs as if they were a head office.
The Regional Administrative Tribunal rejected such method of calculation, stating that the urbanisation work cost should have been calculated as if the areas at issue were hotel spaces, given that they were functional to the hotel business.
The decision of the court on the cost for building amnesty must also be highlighted.
The court stated that if, at the time of the filing of the request for building amnesty, the estimated bill of quantity was also filed, the cost for building amnesty shall be determined with reference to such bill of quantity and not to the applicable regional standard rates.

decision

LANDSCAPE COMPLIANCE: SENTENCE N. 1622/2017 OF TAR OF MILAN


Below is published the decision of the Regional Administrative Tribunal (T.A.R.) Lombardy - Milan, Section I, n. 1662 dated 17.7.2017, concerning the landscape compliance.
The judicial decision upheld the resolution of rejection to carry out the assessment on the landscape compliance issued by the Park Authority in breach of the procedure set forth by art. 167 Legislative Decree 42/2004, given that the mandatory and binding assessment of the supervising landscape authority was not requested in advance.

decision

EXPROPRIATION COMPENSATION: DECREE N. 879/2017 BY APPEAL COURT OF MILAN


Below is published the decree by Appeal Court of Milan, Civil Section I, registered 879/2017, filed on 13/3/2017, issued in the summary judgment pursuant to Art. 702 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code, brought by the Municipality of Beregazzo con Figliaro against the decision of the Expropriation Commission of Como County regarding the expropriation indemnity for the expropriation procedure of certain lands co-owned by a group of heirs which are defended by the firm, such land being classified, in the context of a residential area, for the construction of a recreational center.
The proceedings, prior to falling under the judgment of the Appeal Court for the decision on the amount of the expropriation indemnity of the aforementioned lands, have been the subject matter of the decision of the Administrative Tribunal in first and second tier, which have acknowledged the nature and destination use of the aforementioned lands.
With the aforementioned decree, the Appeal Court, also taking into consideration the opinion of the court consultants, has confirmed the development destination use of the lands and relevant nature, and has rejected the alleged non-development destination use pursuant to art. 37, paragraph 3 of the D.P.R. (Italian Presidential Decree) n. 327/2001, as subsequently amended, which was claimed by the Municipality.
The decision was based, mainly, on the technical law applicable at the time of issuance of the expropriation decree, which allowed the private action regulated by a specific regulation – and which therefore excluded the exclusivity of public action thereof, given that “the private action aimed at developing structures of public interest (for which specific development criteria are set) and which is regulated by a specific regulation with the public authority, excluding by matter of law the development exclusively by public action.
The private action together with the public action – as allowed by the technical law – confirmed the principle of development of the land by matter of law which was challenged by the Municipality”.

decision

BUILDING INDEMNITY: SENTENCE N. 342/2017 OF TAR OF MILAN


Below is published the decision of the Regional Administrative Tribunal (T.A.R.) of Milan, Section II° n. 342, filed on 10.2.2017 pursuant to which the appeal against the decree of the Municipality of Milan dated 4.2.2015 was accepted, the rejection of a conformity assessment request made by the plaintiff regarding works carried out in the attic of one of the residential units of their property, consisting in the creation of two storage rooms in said attic.
With the sentence at issue, the T.A.R. of Milan has declared that the appealed decision was too generic, it’s motivation “inadequate”, “not logical and not clear”, and in particular, stated that: “the appealed sentence does not set forth the reasons which have brought the authority to adopt the appealed decision, but makes reference, for this purpose, to the content of the sentence for the reasons which do not allow the request to be accepted, sent to the plaintiff pursuant to Art. 10-bis of law n. 241 from 1990…”.
The Tribunal of Milan states that such notice, by which the rejection has been announced, assumes that the works, for which the demand of remediation has been submitted, have increased the gross walking area (s.l.p.).
Such assumption, however, “has been demonstrated as meritless from the documentation, as well as from the evidence filed, as well as from the memorandum filed by the authority, in which it is expressly states that the works are aimed at the reduction of the gross walking area by creating two non-accessible storage rooms closed by fixed walls (...).
The reason as to why the tribunal rejected the request on the assumption of the increase of the gross working area is unclear. ”.

decision

PRECAUTIONARY CIVIL JUDGEMENT: DECREE DATED 16.01.2017 BY APPEAL COURT OF MILAN


Below is published the decree dated 16.01.2017 of the Appeal Court of Milan, issued by the pre-trial proceedings and brought by the Municipality of Inverigo against a real estate company from Milan defended by our firm.
The decision is the most recent decision of the more than decennial legal proceedings between the real estate company and municipality in respect to the termination of a town planning agreement dated 1966 and related to a developable area in the high portion of the Lambro River Valley.
With the decision at issue (which has rejected the request of the municipality to suspend the validity of a prior decision, upheld at the Court of Cassation) the Appeal Court has highlighted the difference between the scenario regulated by Art. 283 of the civil proceeding code (c.p.c.) and the scenario regulated by Art. 373 c.p.c., in respect to the requirement of the so called “periculum in mora”.
The Appeal Court of Milan has stated that the review on whether the appeal is grounded, which is required by scenario Art. 283 c.p.c., is not allowed in the scenario regulated by Art. 373 c.p.c.
The court has also stated that the “serious and irreparable damage” addressed in this latter prevision «is to be read as a risk that, by giving effect of the sentence of the Appeal Court while being appealed by the Cassation Court, the damage that may occur is definitive and irreparable on the good which is the subject matter of the decision», therefore, “the fact that an amount is to be paid is NOT a serious and irreparable damage".
The fact that “such payment” would have caused a “prejudice to the liquidity” of the municipality was not material for the decision, nor that it would have had a negative effect on the possibility for the municipality to provide economic support to the people under its jurisdiction, this because "such effects are the typical effects of the obligation of payment...in respect to which the municipality has already declared to be able to pay a portion of the payment immediately"

ordinanza

BUILDING RENOVATION: SENTENCE N. 224/2016 OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT


Below is published the decision of the Constitutional Court n. 224/2016 dated 20.10.2016, which declared the constitutional illegitimacy of Art. 17, paragraph 1, Regional Law of Lombardy n. 7/2012, concerning building renovation.
The subject matter was raised by the T.A.R. of Milan in a legal proceeding in which the law firm assisted one of the parties.
The law, which has been declared unconstitutional, was giving full effect to the building certificates issued on the ground of the regional law which, in turn, did not set any limit to the shapes of the renovation works; such law was declared unconstitutional with decision of the Constitutional Court n. 309/2011 because it was in contrast with the definition of building renovation given by D.P.R. 380/2001.
With the decision at issue, the Court declared the constitutional illegitimacy of cited Art. 17, paragraph 1, Regional Law of Lombardy 7/2012 for violation of the constitution, given that the law was aimed at “mitigating the effect of another law which was declared unconstitutional”.
As is known, at the state level of regulation, the prohibition of any shape alteration in the building renovation has been removed with the Law Decree 69/2013 (so called “Action Decree”) after the facts of the legal proceedings at issue.
In this regard, the Court observed that the “current issue and the relevant law concern facts that occurred before the entry into force of such law and therefore are not affected by the same”.

decision

AUTHORIZATION TO BUILDING BY TACIT AGREEMENT: SENTENCE N. 1681/2016 OF TAR OF MILAN


Below is published the decision of the T.A.R. of Milan, Section II, n. 1681/2016, filed on 15.9.2016, concerning authorization to building obtained as silence - consent.
In this case with the decision at issue, a religious establishment presented a building permit application to the Municipality of Milan for the transformation of production use spaces into a place of worship.
After the elapse of 105 days from the date of filing the request without hearing that the municipality had issued any decision, the religious establishment believed to have obtained the building permit by means of silence - consent pursuant to Art. 38 Regional Law of Lombardy 12/2005, as subsequently amended.
The municipality challenged the fact that the building permit was issued by means of silence - consent, given that the application did not contain the sworn declaration concerning the contamination of the soil and of the undertaking for the payment of the relevant fee.
The T.A.R. declared valid the building permit obtained by means of silence - consent, stating that, contrary to the belief of the municipality, “the application was not incomplete nor was anything missing, given that the filing party at the time of the filing has explained its reasoning on why it did not file any sworn declaration, nor provide the amount that the municipality offices believe was due”.
In this respect, it is important to note the difference set by the T.A.R. between an incomplete documentation (on the basis of which silence - consent cannot be valid) and - as in the case at issue - a scenario in which the building rules and the factual cases are interpreted differently.
In this case, if the application is untimely reviewed by the municipality, silence - consent will have effect in any case In conclusion, the T.A.R. states that “if all the essential elements are met, e.a. the application is made within the terms and pursuant to the requirements of the law,... the remaining elements are considered requirements to the validity, which cannot prejudice the obtainment of the title by means of silence - consent”.

decision

SUPERINTENDED AUTHORIZATION: SENTENCE N. 983/2016 OF TAR OF TUSCANY


Below is published the decision of the T.A.R. of Tuscany, Section III, n. 938/2016, dated 7.6.2016, concerning the superintendent’s rejection of the execution of certain works on a restricted building for historical reasons (vincolo culturale), followed by an application for authorization presented by a private entity pursuant to Art. 21 Legislative Decree 42/2004, as subsequently amended.
In this case, the T.A.R. annulled the contested refusal, given that the superintendent did not provide the reasons that would prevent clearance of the application in advance, pursuant to Art. 10 bis Law 241/1990 as subsequently amended.
Specifically, the decision held true that the “the plaintiff was not allowed to discuss the issue with the authority and this caused an illegitimate rejection of the application, also in light of the absence of the reasons underlying such rejection given that . . . should the authority have informed the private entity in advance of its reasons, a discussion could have followed and the parties would have had a better chance to understand the case at issue and the technical and legal reasons underneath the rejection by the authority”.

decision

CHANGE OF BUILDING USE: SENTENCE N. 2279/2015 OF TAR OF MILAN


Below is published the decision of the T.A.R. of Milan, Section II, n. 2279/2015 dated 29.10.2015, concerning the payment of the fees for renovating works involving a change of building use.
More specifically, the legal issue faced by the decision concerns the criteria for determining the infrastructure costs for the building project consisting in the building renovation with intended use changes - from a public office (former municipal office) to a residential building - of the property of the plaintiff’s company, purchased following a public auction held by the municipality.
According to the municipality, the renovation works would be separated into two distinct operations, the renovation and the change of use, subject to two different ways of calculating the infrastructure costs.
In such way, in the opinion of the authority, the total amount of the cost is the result of the total cost of the renovation and the cost for the change of use, the latter calculated to the extent of the new construction.
With the decision at issue, the T.A.R. deemed the work of the municipality illegitimate, annulling measures taken by the same.
The decision allows to state that renovating works can also include works aimed at changing the use of a building.
Nevertheless, it attaches importance to the solution of the concern disputed under Art. 52, paragraph 1, Regional Law of Lombardy n. 12/2005, pursuant to which, the change of use linked to construction works does not modify their nature.
Therefore, the change of use falls under the authorization under which the construction works are authorized and consequently are not to be considered as a separate and autonomous work unrelated to the principle one.
In light of this, the defendant municipality was sentenced to calculate the due fees as unitary execution of renovating works without taking into consideration the chance of use as a separate intervention”.

decision

STANDARD MONETIZING: SENTENCE N. 4001/2015 OF THE STATE COUNCIL


Below is published the decisions of the State Court of Appeal, Section IV, n. 4001/2015 dated 26.8.2015, concerning payment in lieu of transfer of the ownership title.
The subject matter was the payment to the Municipality of Milan of an amount in lieu of the transfer to the municipality of a portion of an area under development to be made by a private entity in the context of the conversion of an existing building to a hotel.
The rules and the methods for the determination of such amount were contained in the town planning agreement entered into by the municipality and the private entity (titolo edilizio convenzionato).
After the execution of the town planning agreement, the municipality has redetermined the amounts due alleging the application of Law 244/2007 which states the principle that the expropriation indemnification of developable areas shall be determined by the market value of the area.
By completely overturning the sentence of the T.A.R. of Milan, the State Court of Appeal has declared the municipality’s request of payment illegitimate.
The decision of the Court of Appeal is based, first of all, on the nature of the town planning agreement entered into by the parties.
The town planning agreement, in respect to the methods for calculating the amounts due, gave the right to inform the private entity of the balance due to the municipality, as well as the undertaking of the private entity to review such balance: “The municipality, pursuant to Law n. 244/2007, reserves the right to inform the private operator of any balance which might be due in lieu of the transfer to the municipality of a portion of an area under development, which the private operator will review”.
In particular, the State Court of Appeal stated that the aforementioned Law n 244/2007 – whose only purpose was to indemnify the municipalities with an adjusted expropriation amount of the developable areas- “in order to be applicable in the case at issue, the parties should have inserted an express reference” On the other hand, pursuant to the principle in claris non fit interpretatio, “such interpretation cannot be given by a provision of law, whose purpose was clearly to grant the municipality the right to provide a balance and the undertaking of the private operator to review it”.
Art. 46 of the Regional Law of Lombardy n. 12/2005 is also recalled, identifying the date of execution of the town planning agreement as the date at which the determination of the amounts due to the municipality shall be based (and therefore, at a date which is before the date of determination).
Therefore, the decision specifies that there is no obligation to pay any amount which “may become due only as an adjustment to the amount previously determined”.
After summarizing the above principles, the State Court of Appeal determines that an adjustment of the amount due in lieu of the transfer to the municipality of a portion of an area under development is legitimate only by an “explicit provision of law or by the building title”.
This was not the case at issue.

decision

ILLEGITIMATE OCCUPANCY: SENTENCE N. 7/2015 OF TAR OF MILAN


Below is published the decree of T.A.R. of Lombardy – Milan, Section III, n. 7/2015 dated 7.1.2015, concerning illegitimate occupancy.
In the case at issue, an expropriation proceeding was commenced for the acquisition of certain areas which were needed for the construction of roads.
The construction works were completed but the expropriation proceeding was still pending.
Upon petition of the owners regarding the concerned areas, the T.A.R. has stated that without an expropriation deed obtained within the statutory terms, the completion of the public works on an illegitimately occupied area does not cause a transfer of the ownership title.
In this respect, the deletion from the Italian legal system of the principle of case law regarding transfer of ownership title in case of illegitimate occupancy has been expressly confirmed.
The expropriating Authority, therefore, has been sentenced, inter alia, to issue an acquisition decree of the areas pursuant to Art. 42 bis of the Unified Code of Expropriation or, alternatively, to return to the owners such areas in the previous status, in addition to any damage compensation.
The decision became definitive and unappealable.

decision