Abusive veranda: no amnesty, the TAR confirms the fine of 26,000 euros and the acquisition the sentence of the Campania Tar confirms the maximum sanction for building abuse on a bound area, reaffirming the severity of the urban planning rules and the legitimacy of the municipal acquisition of non -demolished works.

Building abuse is a recurring problem in Italy, with consequences that may vary from the demolition of irregular works to the application of heavy pecuniary penalties. Often, those who make illegal constructions hope for a future amnesty, but the current legislation imposes severe controls by the competent municipalities and authorities.

A recent ruling of the Tar Campania has faced a case of building abuse, clarifying the boundaries within which the administration can act and the legitimacy of the imposed sanctions.

What are the limits of the confiscation of a property? Do administrative sanctions always follow the principle of proportionality?

Let’s find out the details of the story together.

Advertisement – Advertising

The case: the illegal veranda and the sanction of the Municipality

The story originated when the Municipality issued a demolition order against the owner of a property located in Marano di Napoli. The contested building abuse concerned the creation of A 24 sqm veranda on a sunlightbuilt in the absence of the necessary urban permits.

The demolition order, notified in 2020, imposed the owner to restore the state of the places within a pre -established term.

However, the recipient of the provision did not take demolition within the established times. Consequently, in 2022, the Municipality adopted a new provision, declaring thenon -compliance with the order of demolition. Based on art. 31 of Presidential Decree 380/01, when an abusive work is not spontaneously removed, The municipal administration can automatically acquire it to its heritage and dispose of its demolition at the expense of the abuse manager.

In the specific case, the Municipality has not only ordered the acquisition of the illegal veranda, but also of the entire solar pavement on which it had been mademotivating the decision with the need to carry out the demolition works. This point was the subject of dispute by the owner, who considered the acquisition of a wider area compared to the contested abuse.

At the same time, the municipal administration has imposed a pecuniary sanction of 20,000 euroscalculated on the basis of the criteria established by a 2016 municipal regulation. The amount subsequently aggravated to 26,000 euros for the non -payment within the deadlines, leading to the issue of an tax collection folder by the Municipality.

At this point, the owner decided to challenge the acquisition order, the sanctioning measure and the payment folder in front of the Campania Tar, raising a series of legal disputes.

Advertisement – Advertising

The reasons for the appeal: disputes and legal aspects

The applicant contested the decision of the Municipality from several profiles, considering it excessive and not adequately motivated. One of the most criticized aspects was the acquisition not only of the illegal veranda, but also of the entire solar pavement.

According to the defense, the provision should have limited itself to the abusive work and not to extend to a part of the building that was not directly involved in the building violation. The Municipality justified this choice with the need to proceed with the demolition, but for the applicant it was an abuse of power, since there was no clear reason for the inclusion of such an extensive area.

Another controversial point concerns the administration’s decision to subordinate the Return of the solar pavement to pay the pecuniary sanction. According to the applicant, this condition would be without a clear legal basis, as current legislation does not expressly provide for such a bond. This administrative choice would have created a further obstacle, making the return of the area dependent on the payment of the requested sum.

There pecuniary sanction of 20,000 euros, subsequently increased to 26,000 euroswas another element of strong dispute. The applicant argued that the amount established was disproportionate to the extent of the abuse and that the administration had not provided an adequate motivation for the application of the maximum amount provided for by the municipal regulation.

In support of this thesis, it has been highlighted that the same municipal legislation provides for different levels of sanction based on the severity of the abuse, and in this case the reason had not been clarified for which the highest threshold had been applied.

Finally, the applicant recalled the principle of proportionality, claiming that the work of the Municipality had not respected the criteria of reasonableness requested by the law. According to him, the Administration should have more careful the impact of the measures adopted and provide a more detailed justification for the choices made. These elements represented the fulcrum of the appeal, with which the TAR has been asked to cancel both the acquisition order and the administrative sanction.

Advertisement – Advertising

The TAR decision: between partial acceptance and confirmation of the sanction

The Regional Administrative Court of Campania, with sentence no. 1124 of 10 February 2025, examined the disputes raised by the applicant on the merits, reaching an articulated decision. A part of the appeal has been declared unpubablewhile the remainder was rejected, effectively confirming the legitimacy of the sanction imposed by the Municipality.

As for the acquisition of the solar pavement, the TAR noted that the applicant himself, during the procedure, has declared that he has no more interest in the decision on this point. As a result, the Court took note of the renunciation and declared the relative disputes invented. This means that the acquisition measure, although initially contested, has no longer been subject to discussion in the final judgment.

The evaluation of the theme of the pecuniary sanction. The TAR rejected the disputes made by the applicant, believing that the amount of 20,000 euros was legitimate. The Court highlighted how building abuse had been carried out in onearea subject to landscape and hydrogeological constraintsan element that, according to art. 31, paragraph 4-bis, of Presidential Decree 380/2001, justifies the application of the sanction to the maximum extent.

In addition, the municipal regulation clearly establishes that for abuses made in areas with particular environmental or safety constraints, the sanction must be applied in its entirety.

In light of these considerations, the TAR established that the Municipality has operated correctly, following the regulations in force. Consequently, the appeal relating to the sanction was rejected and the owner of the property will have to pay the amount requested.