Innovations are those modifications that affect the material entity of the common thing or determine a change in its original destination. In other words, innovation occurs when, following the work performed, the common part has a different material consistency or is used for different purposes compared to the previous ones. Case law has repeatedly clarified that not every replacement or modification automatically integrates an innovation.
The reasons for the conflict
The matter originates from an urgent appeal, presented pursuant to article 700 of the code of civil procedure, promoted by the owner of a commercial premises located on the ground floor of a condominium building and by the company managing the same, used as the headquarters of a civil and commercial mediation body.
The appellants complained that, due to a serious malfunction of the centralized cooling system, during the summer season the temperatures in the rooms on the ground floor did not drop below 26 degrees. This situation generated severe inconvenience for employees, professionals and users, leading to the postponement of numerous business meetings and compromising the general liveability conditions of the property.
Added to this was the specific personal condition of the owner, undergoing oncological treatment, for whom the medical indications prescribed permanence in healthy environments free from temperature changes. On the basis of these arguments, the appellants asked the Court to urgently order the condominium to immediately carry out, at its own expense and responsibility, all the technical interventions necessary to restore the correct functioning of the system also for the benefit of the rooms on the ground floor, referring to the system solutions already hypothesized by a specialized company. When appearing before the court, the condominium contested the adverse claims, requesting their complete rejection.
The conditions of the common cooling system
From the documents in the case and from the checks carried out by the appointed company, a precise structural criticality of the centralized system emerged, characterized by a radiant ceiling system integrated with dehumidification. Due to a technical regulation conflict between the residential units on the upper floors and the commercial funds on the ground floor, to adequately cool the latter it was necessary to set very low water temperatures, which however caused condensation phenomena and water infiltrations from the ceilings of the apartments; otherwise, by setting suitable parameters for the homes, the rooms on the ground floor remained without the necessary refreshment.
To solve the problem, a deep renovation would have been necessary with the separation of the circuits and the insertion of special valves and pumps, with considerable costs and without an absolute guarantee of success. For these reasons, the condominium assembly unanimously decided not to carry out the complex works on the general system, instead authorizing the owners of the commercial properties to install autonomous systems with split air conditioners without a visible external unit and exempting them from the costs of ordinary maintenance of the centralized system. This resolution had never been challenged by the appellants.
The decision of the Court of Livorno
The Judge of the Court of Livorno rejected the precautionary application. In the justification of the order it was highlighted that the interventions requested by the appellants did not constitute simple maintenance or restoration works of the common system, but rather a real innovation of the system itself. Pursuant to article 1120 of the civil code, the implementation of innovations on the common areas falls within the discretion of the condominium assembly and requires specific deliberate majorities, as it cannot be imposed by the individual condominium owner through an emergency judicial provision.
The Court also clarified that the protection of the right to health or work in healthy environments cannot go so far as to create an obligation on the condominium to create or modify common systems for the benefit of individual private properties, in the absence of a law requiring it.
In conclusion, the provision established the prevalence of assembly sovereignty in matters of condominium innovations, confirming the non-existence of the conditions for accepting emergency protection. Furthermore, the appellants never challenged the resolution with which the assembly had renounced work on the general system, opting for the solution of autonomous splits in the commercial funds.
>> 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.
