Judicial revocation of the administrator, when possible
Judicial revocation is therefore possible only if concrete elements emerge that lead to the prediction of imminent and significant damage to the condominium. A simple formal irregularity is not enough: it must be a conduct which, due to its methods and consequences, has affected or may have a negative impact on the management or rights of the condominium owners.
Ultimately, the judge must evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether the director’s behavior is justifiable, whether it has produced prejudicial effects or whether it represents a sign of incorrect or potentially harmful management. Revocation, therefore, is not automatic, but the result of a discretionary judgment based on the seriousness and consequences of the irregularities found.
Role of the administrator and asbestos in condominiums
According to art.1130, paragraph 1, n. 4) cc the administrator has the power/duty to carry out “preservation actions relating to the common parts”. The condominium administrator may incur administrative sanctions and, for incorrect disposal of asbestos, criminal sanctions in the event that he does not fulfill his legal obligations both as manager of the structure and as, possibly, employer of doormen or cleaners (please remember that as an employer he has the obligation to comply with Legislative Decree 81/2008).
Furthermore, in the event of exposure or accidents, compensation requests could be received from condominium owners, workers or third parties. In the case of the presence of asbestos in a condominium building, therefore, the administrator must carry out a census and mapping of the asbestos products present in the common areas. To this end, he will have to make use of a qualified technician who will have to fill in a specific form.
This is, to all intents and purposes, a requirement that falls within the responsibilities established by law for the administrator, who is responsible for the correct management of asbestos risk within the condominium.
The consequences of administrator inertia: the risk of revocation
When there is “an already established asbestos situation” in a condominium and the administrator does not intervene in any way, this inactivity can take on a very serious burden. In such cases, the omissive behavior can be assessed as a truly serious irregularity, especially because it concerns material that requires immediate attention and specific procedures.
To confirm the above, a recent provision from the Court of Agrigento (Decree of 22 February 2026) deserves to be highlighted. In the case examined, one of the condominium owners turned to the Court to request the dismissal of the administrator. According to the appellant, the administrator had accumulated a long series of omissions: he did not keep the condominium register updated, he did not provide the documentation requested by the condominiums, he did not display his contact details as required by law and he had not taken action to protect the common areas.
The plaintiff also complained that the administrator had not taken action either to fix a damaged asbestos product present in a common part (the lid of a tank), or to deal with material containing asbestos coming from a private unit and then abandoned in the condominium spaces, as in the case of a chimney. In both situations, therefore, there was a lack of any initiative aimed at making the common areas safe and correctly managing a risk that requires timely interventions and mandatory technical protocols.
The administrator, although duly summoned, did not appear or file a defence. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, considering the omission relating to asbestos in the condominium to be decisive. In fact, the documents revealed the presence of an asbestos flue in the attic, a circumstance also confirmed by a statement made in a previous proceeding. Faced with such a delicate element, the administrator should have demonstrated that he had carried out a risk assessment by a qualified technician, that he had verified the safety of the product and that he had implemented the control measures required by law. None of this has been proven, also because the administrator did not turn himself in.
For the Court, this omission was in itself sufficient to constitute a serious irregularity, such as to justify its revocation. The judges did not consider it necessary to examine the other objections raised by the appellant. The proceeding therefore ended with the revocation of the director in office.
>> 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.
