The recent ruling of the Regional Administrative Court of Campania (n. 1812 of 2024) addressed an important issue related to building abuses and urban planning regulations.
The case concerns a property located in the municipality of Montecorvino Pugliano, for which the Municipality has issued ademolition order of works deemed abusive. The owners of the property appealed, arguing that the ordinance was illegitimate for various reasons, including the lack of clarity in the accusations made and the absence of prior communication.
The TAR, however, confirmed the legitimacy of the actions taken by the municipal administration, rejecting the appeal.
But what led to this decision? And how does this ruling affect future building interventions and compliance with regulations?
Advertisement – Advertising
The nature of the disputed works
The heart of the dispute concerns a series of works created at a rural building owned by the appellants, which include ancillary structures such as a container, a warehouse, a shed and an asphalt yard.
The demolition order issued by the Municipality is based on a series of building and urban planning violations found during an inspection, which would have highlighted significant changes that did not comply with the permits issued or even lacked authorization.
Among the most relevant protests, theincrease in volume and the change of intended use of the rural building: rooms that should have been intended exclusively for agricultural activities were instead transformed into residential and logistical spaces, substantially modifying the original use of the property.
According to the Municipality, the structures and artefacts created would violate the Municipal Urban Plan (PUC) in force, which gives the area in question the status of “special agricultural sub-area”, limiting building interventions to agricultural purposes only. This restriction also extends to the container, used as an office, and to the sheds intended for logistical activities, interventions which, again according to the municipal administration, distort the agricultural use of the area.
The demolition order therefore represents a necessary act to re-establish the original urban planning conformity of the area, an obligation often imposed by the stringent regulatory constraints of agricultural areas.
Advertisement – Advertising
The reasons for the appeal and the owners’ complaints
In the appeal presented, the owners raised several criticisms of the municipal ordinance, considering it illegitimate for procedural and substantive reasons. One of the main complaints concerns the lack of clarity in the motivation of the demolition order: according to the appellants, the Municipality failed to distinguish between works carried out with regular building permits (obtained between 1983 and 1997) and those which, instead, would have been the subject of free construction activities, i.e. interventions for which a building permit would not have been necessary.
Furthermore, the owners claim that some of the disputed works are covered by a 1997 Declaration of Initiation of Activity (DIA), never annulled, which would have authorized at least part of the modifications now considered abusive.
Among other criticisms raised, the appellants contested the lack of an adequate investigation by the Municipality, believing that the demolition order is based on an incorrect and confusing description of the alleged irregularities. Furthermore, they highlighted the lack of prior communication, which, in their opinion, would have made it possible to clarify and, possibly, remedy the alleged irregularities.
For these reasons, they requested the annulment of the ordinance, underlining how the procedural and substantive deficiencies constitute violations of their rights of participation and defense.
Advertisement – Advertising
The position of the TAR: justifications and applied legislation
The Campania TAR rejected the appealstating that the municipal ordinance complies with current building and urban planning regulations. In particular, the court established that, since these are sanctioning interventions for building abuse, the Municipality is not required to guarantee prior communication of the initiation of the procedure (pursuant to art. 7 of Law no. 241/90).
In fact, the jurisprudence on the matter believes that the demolition order represents a “bound” administrative act and not subject to discretion: since these are illegal works, the municipal administration is obliged to intervene with a repressive measure and to impose the restoration of legality.
The TAR also clarified that the municipal ordinance describes in detail the illegal works and the related violations, specifying the abuses found on each building subject to demolition. According to the court, therefore, the Municipality carried out all the necessary checks to define the abuses precisely, without any investigative gaps.
The TAR also reiterated that the change of intended use, the increase in volume and the modification of the shape constitute substantial variations which, by law, require specific authorizations. In the absence of such permits, the demolition order is fully legitimate and compliant with Presidential Decree 380/2001, which regulates construction regulations and defines the sanctions for building abuse.
