A recent ruling of the Lazio Tar has established that a municipality cannot cancel a permit to build in amnesty in self -protection after an excessively long period of time, especially if this goes to harm the legitimate assignment of the citizens. The case concerns a provision with which a municipality has revoked a building permit issued almost twenty years earlier, ordering the demolition of the works carried out.
However, the TAR believed that the local authority had exercised its power in violation of the terms of the law, making the cancellation illegitimate.
But what are the limits of administrative self -protection? When can a citizen assert his right to legitimate assignment? And what are the consequences of this sentence for the construction sector?
Advertisement – Advertising
The case: the building permit canceled after almost 20 years
The story originates from two permits to build in amnesty issued in 2006 and 2007, with which the Municipality had regularized building interventions on a rural building. In particular, the permits allowed the change of intended use of some real estate units, the creation of extensions and the adjustment of the pre -existing structure.
The interventions had been authorized as part of the building amnesty provided for by the decree-law 269/2003, then converted into law 326/2003.
However, in 2024, the Municipality has decided to cancel these permitsclaiming that the works had not been carried out within the deadline provided for by the condoms, or March 31, 2003. In support of this thesis, the Administration referred to a technical advice drawn up in 2008, which, through the Air image analysis of the time, he found that the manufacturing the object of amnesty was not present on 12 July 2003.
Although this report was already in possession of the Municipality since 2008, no provision had been adopted for over 15 years. Only in 2024 did the Authority started the self -protection procedure, culminating in the cancellation of the building permits and with the issuance of a demolition order.
Among the recipients of this provision there was a citizen who, in the meantime, had purchased one of the real estate units, convinced of the full legitimacy of the building permit on which his act of ownership was based. This citizen then challenged the ordinance in front of the Lazio TAR, claiming that the Municipality had acted in violation of the temporal limits required by the law for administrative self -protection and that, in any case, he could not be penalized for any errors or omissions made by the entity itself in the past.
Advertisement – Advertising
The decision of the Lazio TAR: the time limit for cancellation in self -protection
The Lazio TAR, with sentence no. 2702 of 2025, accepted the owner’s appeal, believing that the Municipality had exerted its power of self -protection in violation of the temporal limits imposed by law. The reference legislation is article 21-Nonies of law 241/1990, which establishes the maximum term within which an administration can cancel an already adopted administrative measure.
Currently, the deadline for the office cancellation of a building permit is of 12 months from his adoption. In the past, this limit was of 18 monthsbut in any case, it has never been foreseen that a measure can be canceled at a distance of decades, except exceptional situations, such as the assessment of false statements.
The TAR showed that the Municipality, already in 2008he was aware of the alleged irregularities, having a detailed technical advice available that questioned the legitimacy of the amnesty. However, the Administration had not adopted any provision for over 15 years, letting the citizens concerned continue to consider the building securities valid.
According to the court, This administrative inertia has created a legitimate assignment against the ownerswho acted in good faith on the basis of a formal title issued by the Municipality itself. It is therefore not possible to justify an office cancellation after such a long period of time, since this would contrast with the principles of certainty of the law and stability of the legal positions.
The TAR then declared illegitimate the cancellation of the building permit and, consequently, also canceled the demolition order which derived from it.
Advertisement – Advertising
The right to legitimate assignment and the consequences for the owners
One of the central aspects of the sentence concerns the principle of legitimate assignmenta fundamental legal concept that protects citizens when public administrations make decisions that affect their legal situations.
In the specific case, the owner who appealed to the TAR had purchased the property in good faith, based on a Building permit issued regularly by the Municipality. Also, for years he had paid tax and municipal taxes without the administration to raise any objection on the legitimacy of the building title.
According to the TAR, a municipality cannot cancel a building permit without taking into account the consequences For those who have acquired rights on that property, especially when the measure is revoked after an excessively long period of time. If the local authority did not act promptly to correct any errors or irregularities, He cannot then transfer the weight of his omissions to citizenshitting them with demolitions or revocations of the building securities.
The TAR then reiterated that The public administration must act with consistency and timelinessavoiding to create situations in which private individuals suddenly find themselves deprived of a consolidated right due to the delays or negligence of the municipal offices.
This decision represents an important precedent for those in similar situations: Citizens who have purchased a property with a valid building permit can oppose late self -protection measures, asserting their right to legitimate assignment.
Advertisement – Advertising
Abusive subdivision: an not sufficiently motivated accusation
Another controversial aspect of the story concerns the dispute of abusive subdivision by the Municipality. In fact, in the cancellation of the building permit, the administration had argued that the building interventions in question had determined an illegitimate urban transformation of the area.
According to the TAR, however, This accusation was not adequately motivated. The Municipality had limited itself to making a generic reference to the “transformation of the surrounding areas” and an alleged “aggravation of urban loads”, without providing concrete elements to demonstrate that the intervention actually included in the case of illegal subdivision.
To contest an illegal subdivision, in fact, the administration must demonstrate that:
- The area has undergone a significant urban transformationaltering the original structure of the territory.
- Unauthorized fractionation and works have been carried outsuch as to affect the planning of the area.
- The interventions generated a significant impact on public services and infrastructuressuch as roads, sewers or electricity grid.
In the specific case, the TAR considered that The Municipality had not provided adequate motivation To support this accusation. Consequently, abusive subdivision could not be invoked as justification for the cancellation of the building permit and for the demolition order.
This part of the sentence is particularly relevant because it highlights how Local authorities cannot adopt sanctioning measures without an adequate investigation and solid motivation.
