The ruling of the Court of Cassation n. 29924 addresses a very delicate issue for condominiums: the possibility of remediating interventions carried out without authorization on the common parts of a building.
In this case, we are discussing the installation of one water heater and of a boiler on the facades of the building, carried out by two condominium owners without the prior approval required by the condominium regulations. The condominium assembly subsequently decided to “ratify” these interventions, however raising legal questions on respect for architectural decorum and the rights of other condominium owners.
But a condominium meeting really can remediate these interventions retrospectively? What are the limits to be respected?
Let’s find out in detail what the Supreme Court ruled and its implications for condominiums.
Advertisement – Advertising
Unauthorized installations and posthumous amnesty
The case originated with two non-compliant installations: a boiler mounted on the external wall of the building in 2009 and a boiler installed on the facade in 2013, both without the prior approval required by the art. 2 of the condominium regulations. This article establishes that any modification or intervention on the common parts must be previously communicated and approved by the administrator or the assembly.
However, in 2014, the condominium assembly decided to ratify these installations retrospectively, arousing protests from another condominium owner who challenged the resolution for illegitimacy.
The Milan Court of Appeal, at first instance, rejected the appeal, maintaining that the assembly had the power to remedy interventions already carried out. The Supreme Court, however, highlighted that this possibility must be carefully evaluated, especially when they are involved architectural elements of the building.
Advertisement – Advertising
The role of architectural decoration in condominium decisions
One of the key points of the ruling concerns the concept of architectural decoration. According to the Court of Cassation, this represents a common asset of the building which must be preserved and protected, as it contributes to defining the appearance and symmetry of the facade.
An unauthorized installation can alter the decorum and aesthetic harmony of the building, compromising not only the appearance but also the overall value of the property.
The Court underlined that the architectural decoration must be safeguarded regardless of the aesthetic validity of the individual intervention, and that any modification must be evaluated considering the impact on the general appearance of the building.
Therefore, the subsequent “amnesty” by the assembly is not in itself sufficient to justify the intervention if this is in any case detrimental to decorum.
Download the sentence
Advertisement – Advertising
The power of the assembly to remedy subsequent interventions
A new element of this sentence is the recognition of the possibility for the assembly to ratify interventions already carried out, but only under certain conditions. The posthumous amnesty is legitimate only if it does not violate the condominium regulations and if it does not prejudice the decorum or rights of other condominium owners.
Otherwise, individual condominium owners have the right to challenge the resolution to protect the common property and architectural decorum.
In this context, the Court clarified that the authorization issued retrospectively by the assembly cannot justify works that compromise the aesthetics of the building or that were carried out in clear violation of the regulation.
The assembly does not have the power to decide on interventions that damage the building, since this would be outside its competence.
