Cancellation of building permit: When does the 12 -month -old term start?

A recent concrete case: factual reconstruction

The recent sent. n. 225/2025 of the Tar Emilia-Romagna, Bologna, section IIoffers us the opportunity for better investigate the identification of the initial term of the start of the temporal period within which the exercise of the power of cancellation is legitimate.

In the specific case, the following had had the following temporal succession:

• On February 3, 2022 the interested party had submitted the application for the issue of the building permit;
• On February 15, 2022 the municipal technical office communicated the start of the procedure;
• On April 5, 2022 the takeover of a new owner had been taken;
• On November 7, 2022 the office suspended the instructive terms to allow the documentary integration of the practice;
• On 18 April 2023, the office invited new owner to pay the urbanization charges and the construction cost relating to the request for building permit;
• On May 24, 2023 the interested party paid the necessary;
• On June 23, 2023 the permit was issued and withdrawn on the same date by the interested party;
• On January 2, 2024 there was the beginning of the works
• on June 3, 2024, he received the communication of the start of the cancellation procedure in self -protection of the building permit;
• On 11 June 2024 the interested party presented his observations;
• On June 17, 2024 the municipal technical office canceled the building permit.

The moment of adoption of the building permit

As mentioned by the Bolognese judges, it is necessary to distinguish the plan of the existence of the provision from that of effectiveness, requesting, for this second aspect, the communication to the interested parties (since the permit to build an act of a receptive nature, that is, an act that requires the knowledge of the recipient to be able to produce its effects).

Furthermore, The improvement of the building qualification must be excluded As a result of the communication only inherent to the payment of the charges.

Art. 20 of the Consolidated Building Text (4), in turn, on the subject of procedure for the issue of the building permit provides that “The final measure to issue the building permit is adopted by the manager or by the office manager and communicated to the interested party within the peremptory term of fifteen days from the proposal referred to in paragraph 5 The details of the building permit are indicated in the sign displayed at the construction site“: From the formulation of the standard it is therefore clear that the permit to build is considered issued only with the adoption of the final final act of the procedure (5).

It follows that in the specific case the building permit could not be considered adopted Since the moment of the mere invitation to the applicant to pay the charges, nor in the following one of the payment but in the still posterior one of the formal adoption, which intervened on 23 June 2023, a moment from which, therefore, the annual deadline pursued and for the purposes of the exercise of the power of cancellation was set in in art. 21-Nonies of law no. 241/90.

In the light of the sisters arguments, according to the judges, the deed of cancellation of the building permit issued on June 17, 2024 and communicated by PEC on the same date, could be said to be issued, albeit a few days, promptly or within the aforementioned annual term starting from the “adoption” of the act.

Notes

(1) See, recently, Tar Marche, Section II, sent. 228/2025.
(2) art. 21-Nonies-(Cancellation of office)
1. The illegitimate administrative provision pursuant to article 21-octies, excluding the cases referred to in the same article 21-octies, paragraph 2, can be canceled ex officio, existence the reasons of public interest, within a reasonable term, however not exceeding twelve months from the moment of the adoption of the authorization measures or the attribution of economic advantages, including the cases in which the provision has been formed pursuant to Article 20, and Taking into account the interests of the recipients and the counter -interesteds, by the body that issued it, or from another organ provided for by the law. The responsibilities connected to the adoption and failure to cancel the illegitimate provision remain firm.
2. The possibility of validation of the annulable provision, existed by the reasons of public interest and within a reasonable term, is made without prejudice to.
2-bis. The administrative measures achieved on the basis of false representations of the facts or replacement declarations of certification and the deed of false or false notoriety due to the effect of constituent crime conduct, ascertained with a judgment in res judicata, can be canceled by the administration even after the expiry of the term of twelve months referred to in paragraph 1, without prejudice to the application of the criminal sanctions as well as the sanctions provided for by the single text of the December 2000, n. 445.
(3) However, by taking into account – by consolidated jurisprudence – of the concrete discovery by the administration of the facts and circumstances underlying the deed of withdrawal (Former Multis: Council of State, section IV, sent. August 14, 2024, n. 7134) where the impossibility of knowing relevant facts and circumstances is attributable to the person who benefited from the release of the building permit. In order to identify the “dies a quo“Also notes the falsity also a misleading behavior or the presentation of documentation or declarations suitable to mislead the Administration (Tar Puglia, Lecce, Section I, sent. July 19, 2021, n. 11419).
(4) DPR n. 380/2001.
(5) See Tar Lombardia, Brescia, section II, sent. 13 December 2024, n. 993: “In essence, according to the jurisprudence, the dies a quo for the exercise of the power of self -protection, which normally runs from the date of adoption of the first degree provision, can run from the moment of the discovery by the administration of the facts and circumstances based on the deed of retreat, only in the event that it was the behavior of the instant, through false certificates, that caused the impossibility for the administration to carry out a complete assessment of the administration. of the good of life in the preliminary phase of the first instance procedure: in fact, in fact, the need to restore violated legality reaches the need to protect the assignment of the private individual, which is placed at the basis of the twelve months (first eighteen) identified by law by paragraph 1.
2.2.2. On the other hand, this Dies a quo cannot and must not operate when the delay in the “discovery” was determined by a deficiency of the administration and not by the fault of the private individual; So, whenever it is not possible to attribute to the fault of the declarant the non -knowledge, by the administration, of the facts at the basis of the deed of retreat, the term of 12 months for the exercise of the self -protection does not start from the date of the discovery of the latter by the administration, but from the date of adoption of the first degree provision canceled.”