In recent years, the Cila Superbonus It has become one of the most used tools to access the tax advantages related to building redevelopment. Its function is to simplify the start of the works, allowing citizens – through the assevement of a qualified technician – to proceed without waiting for a formal authorization by the Municipality.

However, there was no lack of restrictive interpretations by some local administrations, which declared the cila presented “ineffective”, at a distance even of months or yearsblocking the construction sites and putting access to the Superbonus at risk.

This is exactly what happened in a recent case, brought up to Council of Statewhich marked one Important turning point for citizens, technicians and municipalities. The pronunciation, published in February 2025, clarifies limits, duties and rights in play when it comes to Cila, administrative control and Superbonus.

But what did the Council of State really decided? Can the Municipality declare an ineffective one a cila after years? And does the citizen have tools to defend himself?

Advertisement – Advertising

The concrete case: Torre del Greco against private individuals

The heart of the story revolves around one Cila Superbonus presented in December 2021, aimed at carrying out work of energy efficiency and facilitated renovation by the well -known Superbonus 110%provided for by law decree no. 34/2020 (the so -called “relaunch decree”).

After more than two years, in March 2024, the Municipality notified the citizens concerned one communication of ineffectiveness of Cila, claiming that the building intervention was not legitimately absent with that type of title and reporting some alleged discrepancy between the state of places and documentation deposited.

A decision that had a devastating impact for the applicants: not only the works were immediately blockedbut a paradoxical situation has also been created. The effect of the declaration of ineffectiveness has precluded both the continuation of the worksis the possibility of Return a new Cilasince in the meantime it was the regulatory term expired In order to access the Superbonus (February 17, 2023). The concrete risk? Losing entirely the tax benefits related to the interventions already scheduled or in progress.

At this point, citizens have decided to challenge the act before the Regional Administrative Court for Campaniahighlighting a series of substantial violations:

  • overcoming the time terms for any checks (30 days from the presentation, according to art. 19 of law 241/1990);
  • failure to activate the preliminary investigationwhich could have allowed the production of supplementary documents;
  • The harmful effect produced by the deed, which – contrary to what was claimed by the Municipality – would have concretely affected the legal sphere of private individuals, depriving them of the possibility of taking advantage of the Superbonus.

The TAR, however, rejected the appeal, thus opening the way to the subsequent appeal to the Council of State.

Advertisement – Advertising

The position of the TAR: nothing to do, Cila is not a real act

The Regional Administrative Court for Campania rejected the appeal of citizens considering it inadmissiblebased on a rather rigid jurisprudential orientation. According to this approach, the declaration of ineffectiveness of a Cila would not be a real administrative measurebut a merely informative act, without direct legal effects and therefore not challengeable.

In other words, for the TAR, the communication of the Municipality would only be a simple “Internal notice”a sort of technical taking, without inhibitory or executive value. As a result, he would not have actually affected the citizens’ legal sphere, who – always according to this vision – could have continued the work or present a new building permit.

A reasoning that though did not take into account the regulatory and temporal reality: the cila in question had been presented within the terms provided to access the Superbonus, while a new presentation it would not have been more possible.

This interpretation generated, in fact, a situation contradictory and penalizing For private individuals: on the one hand, a municipality that declares the Cila ineffective, blocking the works; on the other, a judge who says that that act has no concrete effects, excluding the possibility of appealing.

A legal short circuit that made any form of protection impracticableleaving citizens in a bureaucratic and financial limbo. Hence the choice to appeal to the Council of Statewho gave the story completely reading.

Advertisement – Advertising

The turning point of the Council of State: the declaration of ineffectiveness can be challenged

With sentence no. 1651 of 2025, the Council of State It completely overturns the TAR setting and marks an important change of course: The declaration of ineffectiveness of a Cila is a harmful act and, as such, contested. According to the judges of Palazzo Spada, the municipal administration, when it expresses a formal judgment on the validity of Cila, However, he exercises an authoritative power which affects the citizen’s legal sphere.

The college underlines that, even if Cila falls within the list of administrative simplification tools – and is not subjected to a rigid preventive control as happens for the SCIA or for the building permit – this it does not mean that the administration can act without limits or without contradictory. When the Municipality declares an “ineffective” Cila, especially after a long time from the presentation, produces real effects: blocks the work, interrupts the path to obtain tax incentives, and in some cases – as in this – prevents the possibility of re -emerging the applicationcausing concrete economic damage.

For the Council of State, denying the provision of the deed means empty the citizen’s defense rights of meaningleaving him devoid of tools to contest a potentially arbitrary decision of the public administration. Furthermore, he says that a Unlimited power without rules to the local authority, in contrast with the principles of transparency, proportionality and legality sanctioned by law 241/1990.

In particular, the judges highlight how the story is aggravated by the fact that the Cila was aimed at obtaining the Superbonuswith rigid and no longer extendable terms. In this context, the intervention of the Municipality – even if formally defined as “communication” – has had a decisive impact on the possibility of access to a tax benefit of national importanceand precisely for this reason it must be considered challengeable.