The story
The story originates from the serious damage suffered by a condominium owner of an apartment on the seventh floor of a block of flats. For some time the property had been affected by water infiltrations coming from the condominium cornice, infiltrations which had compromised the entire perimeter balcony of the apartment, causing deterioration of the plaster, detachments, deterioration of the ferrous structures, deterioration of the flooring and infiltrations in the areas close to the fixtures.
The owner, before taking legal action, promoted a preventive technical assessment pursuant to art. 696 cpc, from which it emerged that the infiltrations were due to the poor state of repair of the cornice and the detachment of the covering sheaths, which allowed rainwater to penetrate and reach the balcony. The CTU described a picture of advanced degradation, with phenomena of carbonation of the reinforced concrete and detachment of plaster.
The situation had become so dangerous that, following the detachment and fall of some panels placed above the cornice, the Fire Brigade intervened and prohibited access to the balcony due to the risk of collapse. Despite the warning and the commitment made, the condominium did not promptly carry out the necessary repairs.
The condominium owner turned to the Court in court asking for the condominium’s liability to be ascertained pursuant to art. 2051 cc, the sentence to carry out the necessary works and the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, quantified at €11,000, in addition to the sentence pursuant to art. 96 cpc The condominium contested the application, claiming that the damage was due exclusively to atmospheric agents and the age of the structures, and not to infiltrations coming from the cornice. Furthermore, he stated that he had not remained idle, having planned renovation work through the 110% Superbonus and having installed sheet metal and plumbing for safety.
The case was investigated through examination of the witnesses and a new expert witness, aimed at quantifying the damages and verifying the causes. The expert witness confirmed that the most serious damage was directly attributable to the poor condition of the condominium cornice, while other deteriorations (flooring, fixtures, paint) were attributable to normal exposure to atmospheric agents and age.
The decision
The Court of Campobasso highlighted that, in a condominium, the custodian of the common areas is the condominium administrator in person, and that the injured party must only prove the causal link and custody. Instead, it is up to the condominium to demonstrate the fortuitous event, proof which was not provided in this case.
The CTU revealed that the most significant damage (detachment of the plaster, deterioration of the cornice, falling rubble) was directly attributable to poor maintenance of the condominium cornice. The Court therefore accepted the request limited to these damages, ordering the condominium to carry out the necessary works to eliminate the causes of the infiltrations, as indicated by the CTU. The damage to the flooring, fixtures and other elements of the balcony was not recognised, as it was due to normal wear and tear and exposure to atmospheric agents. It has not been proven that they were caused by the deterioration of the condominium cornice.
The damage resulting from loss of enjoyment of the balcony was recognized because access had been prohibited by the Fire Brigade due to the risk of collapse. As the United Sections have highlighted (sentence no. 33645/2022), this type of prejudice is not automatically presumed, but can be proven through concrete facts, such as the documented ban. Since the balcony remained unusable for at least a year, the judge liquidated the damage on an equitable basis in € 2,000, plus revaluation and interest (Trib. Campobasso 16 April 2026 n. 310).
>> If you want to receive news like this directly on your smartphone, subscribe to our new Telegram channel!
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
