Condominium liability and the individual owner
These structures, therefore, are to be considered as a United element and in continuity with the facades of the building. Their management highlights a Balance between condominium liabilityas regards the external part, and that of the single ownerfor the elements of exclusive use. These are therefore components delimiting the building united and in continuity with the facades, protection and confinement of exclusive properties, thus remaining against all condominiumspursuant to article 1123 of the first paragraph, the maintenance of the external walls or panel of the same (like the perimeter walls) and The maintenance of the fixtures and roofing roofs are charged to the single user condominium (the latter if functionally autonomous and detached from the main covered).
In light of the above, it is evident that the modification of a Bovindo by a condominium can create Conflicts with other condominiums. In this regard, a recent sentence of the Genoa Court deserves to be taken into consideration (Judgment of February 19, 2025 n. 463).
The story
The controversy was born from the reporting to the Municipality of a condominium, who contested that the work in progress at the neighbor’s housing unit did not limit themselves to internal works, as indicated in the construction site sign, but also implied one Change of the shape of the property and a volumetric increase. According to this interpretation, the building intervention would not have been absent through the Cila (Communication of the start of work, which is normally used for internal works and not for significant structural changes.
Based on this alleged irregularitiesthe applicant warned the manager of the Municipality’s technical office, soliciting the exercise of the supervisory powers in building and urban planning matters, with the aim of verify the regularity of the intervention undertaken by the neighbor. The interested party notified a second act of warning to the Municipality, however, receiving a negative response. The applicant He turned to the TAR Liguria noting, among other things, that the administration should have ascertained that, in the absence of the consent of the condominium assembly or the other participantsthe counter -interested party was not entitled to carry out works concerning common parts of the building. The TAR accepted the appeal.
The acceptance of the appeal was based on the consideration that The works carried out by the counter -interested party they engraved on common parts of the building, Specifically on the perimeter wall (considered common pursuant to article 1117 cc) in which a Bovindo has been expanded. According to the administrative judges, this intervention determined aAlteration of the architectural decoration of the building, considered an intrinsic and collective value that protects the interests of all owners of the housing units.
The alteration was judged prejudicial, as it negatively engraved on the aesthetic aspect and the harmony of the entire building, thus violating the rights of the other condominiums. The condominium that carried out the changes to the Bovindo turned to the court to ascertain whether the expansion of the Bovindo had altered the architectural decoration of the building. On the subject we recall that, according to the consolidated orientation of the jurisprudence of legitimacy, by architectural decoration the aesthetics of the building resulting from the set of lines and structures that connote it intrinsically, imprinting a specific one must be understood. harmonica physiognomy and one specific identity.
The decision
The Genoese judge excluded that the intervention in question altered the decorum of the building. In particular, the Court stressed that the expansion of the apartment of the apartment on the ground floor with an increase in the volume carried out by the actor, taking into account the changes dating back already operated by the owners of the apartments above that of the actor (peaceful volumetric extensions of the plans above), did not result in a significant alteration to the decor and architectural aspect of the building.
In this regard, it was recently stated that in evaluating the impact of a modifier work on the architectural decoration, a criterion of mutual temperament between the reliefs attributed to the original unity of lines and style, to the impairments made by previous changes and the alteration produced by the modification work subject to trialwithout the decisive relevance to be given, in order to exclude an current injury of the architectural decoration, to the aesthetic degradation produced by previous alterations or to the visibility of the alterations (Cass. Civ., Section II, 12/06/2023, n. 16518).
>> If you want to receive news like this directly on your smartphone subscribe to our new Telegram channel!
