Building Sanatoria: the TAR blocks the Municipality and imposes the application of the “Save Casa” a recent sentence the TAR has canceled the refusal of a building amnesty, establishing that the Municipality had to apply the “Save Home” decree. The provision reiterates the obligation for administrations to consider the most favorable surviving rules in the ongoing procedures.

The recent sentence of the Regional Administrative Court of Campania, Salerno section, has rekindled the debate on building amnesties and their relationship with the new regulatory provisions. The case concerns a citizen who had requested the amnesty for some works carried out in his home, however receiving a refusal from the Municipality.

The Tar’s decision overturned the situation, highlighting the importance of the application of the ius superveniensthat is, of the surviving rules, and recognizing the prevalence of the “Save Home” Decree on the previous provisions.

This sentence could have significant implications for those who have requests for building amnesty or for those who intend to submit them in the future.

But what are the key points of the decision? What are the consequences for citizens and administrations?

Advertisement – Advertising

The case examined by the Salerno TAR

The dispute was born from the request for amnesty presented by a citizen to regularize two building interventions carried out on his home. In particular, the question concerned:

• The change of intended use of an atticoriginally not habitable, transformed into a residential environment.
• There Realization of a wooden canopy with tile coverage, annexed to the main building.

The Municipality rejected the request with a refusal measure, motivating the decision on the basis of the building legislation in force at the time of the construction of the interventions. In addition, the Administration referred to previous demolition orders issued in past years, claiming that these acts precluded the possibility of obtaining the amnesty.

The citizen, considering the rejection of his question unjustly, decided to challenge the measure before the TAR. The appeal was based on a crucial point: the applicability of the new legislation introduced by the “Save Casa” decree (DL 69/2024, converted in Law 105/2024), which changed the criteria for the regularization of building abuse. According to the applicant, the Municipality should have assessed the question in the light of the new provisions, more favorable to the healthiness of some discrepancy.

The question therefore moved to a legal node of great importance: is it possible to deny a amnesty based on the rules that have now been overcome, without considering the legislative changes that have occurred?

Advertisement – Advertising

The principle of ius superveniens and the “Save Home” decree

One of the central aspects of the Tar sentence is the application of the principle of ius superveniensa fundamental legal concept that refers to the prevalence of the rules that have occurred compared to those previously in force, especially when more favorable to citizens.

In the specific case, the “Salva Casa” decree introduced new conditions for the healthiness of the building works, modifying the reference regulatory framework.

The decree, approved in 2024, was born with the aim of simplifying the regularization of small building differentitiesavoiding that citizens find themselves in a condition of legal uncertainty. One of the main novelties was the extension of the possibilities of amnesty for building interventions of limited impact, such as changes of intended use and modest accessory works, provided that it is not in contrast with fundamental landscape or urban planning constraints.

In the case in question, the TAR recalled a precedent of the Council of State (sentence no. 7486/2024), which clarified how the “Save Casa” decree must also be applied in the sanctioning procedures not yet defined irreversibly. This means that, if a request for amnesty is still underway, it must be evaluated in the light of the new legislation, regardless of the previous decisions of the Administration.

In other words, the Municipality of Eboli should have applied the new regulatory framework, without anchoring previous denials or demolition orders based on now overcome provisions.

The TAR ruling therefore reiterated that the principle of ius superveniens is not a discretionary interpretation, but an obligation for administrations, which must always consider the most recent laws in the proceedings still in progress.

Advertisement – Advertising

The reasons for the Tar sentence

The Regional Administrative Court of Campania, with sentence no. 406/2025, accepted the appeal of the citizen, canceling the refusal of the Municipality and the related acts. The decision is based on a clear principle: the Public Administration cannot ignore a more favorable rule to the citizen if the administrative procedure is not yet concluded definitively.

In the sentence, the TAR showed that the Municipality had rejected the request for amnesty Referring to an overcome legislation. In particular, the administration had based the refusal on two elements deemed irrelevant:

• The previous demolition orderswhich, according to the Municipality, would have precluded the possibility of a new amnesty. The TAR clarified that these ordinances, if not yet performed definitively, do not prevent the application of the new discipline.
• The rejection of a previous request for amnestywhich, however, had been evaluated in a different regulatory context, before the entry into force of the “Save Casa” decree.

According to the TAR, the Municipality should have examined the new instance without prejudices, applying the most recent legislation and checking if the intervention could be among the remediable ones. The refusal, however, was formulated without considering the changed legislative framework, making the administrative act illegitimate.

Another relevant aspect of the decision concerns the position of the interested party: the appeal was accepted not because the amnesty was automatically due, but because the Municipality should have assessed it in the light of the new legislation. The sentence therefore does not confer an automatic regularization, but requires the administration to review the request taking into account the new legal framework.

Finally, the TAR decided to compensate the legal costs between the parties, recognizing that the question addressed was new and that the Municipality may not have acted with willful misconduct, but simply had not yet adapted to the updated legislation.