Building in areas subjected to environmental and landscape constraints requires compliance with rigorous rules, often the subject of disputes between private individuals and public administrations. An emblematic case is that of the Sabaudia bathing establishment, at the center of a legal dispute for building interventions deemed abusive by the Municipality.

The appellant had presented one Cila in amnestybut the Municipality declared it unpubablebelieving that the interventions performed required one Wake and the authorization of the competent authorities. After the rejection of the appeal to the Lazio Tar, the case arrived at Council of Statewhich confirmed the decision of the Municipality.

When one can use one Cila and when instead one is needed Wake? What are the consequences of a failure to comply with the building constraints?

Let’s find out together.

Advertisement – Advertising

The facts of the cause: from Cila to demolition

The story originated in 2019, when the owner of a bathing establishment in Sabaudia presents the Municipality one Communication of start of work crushed (Cila) in amnesty. The intervention concerned the Refunctionalization and the different distribution of the internal spaces of the plant, with changes that, according to the applicant, would not have altered the pre -existing building body.

However, the Municipality of Sabaudia, after an inspection, he rejected Ciladeclaring it unpubable For two main reasons:

  • The works carried out were not simple internal interventions, but they included in the category of building renovationwhich requires a trail instead of a Cila.
  • The area is subject to multiple environmental and landscape constraints (Circeo National Park, Hydrogeological constraint, landscape constraint, state -owned constraint, etc.), and for these interventions The authorities of the authorities in charge would have been neededwhich instead were missing.

The appellant then challenged the provision of the Municipality before the Laziowhich in 2023 has rejected the appealconsidering the administration’s decision legitimate. The cause then arrived at Council of Statewhich in 2025 has confirmed the Tar sentencereiterating that the works could not be remedied with a simple cila.

Advertisement – Advertising

The central node of the sentence: Cila or SCIA?

One of the fundamental aspects of sentence no. 1414/2025 of the Council of State concerns the correct qualification of the building interventions. The appellant claimed that the works carried out in the bathing establishment were part of extraordinary maintenance and that, consequently, they were remedied through a simple one Cila. However, the Municipality of Sabaudia had rejected this interpretation, noting that the changes made did not limit themselves to the redistribution of the internal spaces, but involved interventions which affected the shape of the building and its functionality.

The Council of State confirmed the position of the Municipality, highlighting that the transformations carried out included in the building renovationpursuant toArticle 3, paragraph 1, letter d) of Presidential Decree 380/2001as they had determined a building organization partly different from the pre -existing one. In addition, the sentence reiterates that, since it is an area subject to multiple constraints, including the ex landscape one Legislative Decree 42/2004 and the environmental one deriving from belonging to Circeo National Parkany relevant modification would have requested the obtaining of specific authorities from the competent authorities.

The lack of these authorizations has contributed to making Cila unprovenable, as already stated by Tar Lazio in sentence no. 709/2023.

Another aspect clarified by the Council of State concerns the Difference between Cila and Scia. While the first can be used only for extraordinary maintenance interventions that do not affect the structural parts of the buildingthe second is mandatory for interventions by building renovation. In the specific case, the Council of State found that the transformation of the spaces had changed the functional distribution of the plant and the conformation of some environments, determining a variation of the building structure that could not be remedied with a Cila.

The appellant would therefore have to present one Wakeaccompanied by the clearance provided for the bound areas.

In light of these considerations, the Council of State confirmed the validity of the municipal provision that declared Improveible Cila And he reiterated that the interventions carried out needed a more suitable construction title.