A recent ruling from the Court of Bari, n. 4839/2024, has brought attention back to a central issue in condominium disputes: the management of the common parts of a building.

The case concerned the dispute over the exclusive use of a tank compartment located under a condominium building in Bitonto, the subject of construction works by one of the owners, who claimed exclusive ownership. The court’s decision reaffirmed the principle of pro indiviso communion of the common parts, condemning the owner to remove the modifications and restore the original state.

But how do you determine whether an area of ​​a condominium belongs to everyone or is for exclusive use? And what are the legal implications of an unauthorized modification of common areas?

Read also: Damage from leaks: compensation for the tenant, who pays?

Advertisement – Advertising

Description of the case

The dispute originated in a condominium building located in Bitonto, consisting of multiple real estate units, each owned by different condominium owners. Below the building there was a room cistern originally intended for collecting rainwatera structure historically used by all residents to draw water through special access hatches present in various points of the building, including the main entrance hall and some rooms on the ground floor.

One of the owners of a unit located on the ground floor carried out construction work significantly modifying the shape of the tank compartment.

In particular, the intervention involved:

  • Creating exclusive access: The opening of a new direct connection to the tank compartment through the creation of a private internal staircase, making access exclusive from your own room.
  • Closing of common hatches: The original openings that allowed the other condominiums to access the cistern were walled up with bricks and concrete, making it impossible for the collective use of the space and water resources stored inside.
  • Unilateral interventions: The changes were carried out without any assembly consent or formal authorization from the other co-owners of the building, violating the principles of shared management of condominium spaces.

The other condominium owners, believing that the cistern was a common part of the building intended to serve all the real estate units, initiated legal action to request the restoration of the original state of the places and the elimination of the changes made.

Advertisement – Advertising

The reasons for the sentence

The Court of Bari, with sentence no. 4839/2024, based its decision on fundamental principles of condominium law, referring to article 1117 of the Civil Code. This standard establishes that the parts of a building intended forcommon usesuch as tanks and technical rooms, must be considered condominium assets unless a property title explicitly states otherwise.

In the case in question, the judge recognized that the cistern compartment was a common part of the building, as it was originally intended for the collective service for the collection of rainwater. The presence of several access hatches distributed in various points of the building highlighted the multiple use of the property, confirming its collective nature.

A central element of the decision was the presumption of condominium ownership enshrined in the art. 1117 cc, according to which the parts structurally connected to the service of the entire building are to be considered common, unless a clear contrary intention is demonstrated in the purchase documents.

The technical consultancy office (CTU) was fundamental for the decision, which clarified that the tank was not stacked independently and that the changes made, including the closing of the hatches and the creation of a new exclusive access, had occurred subsequently to the purchase of the property. This detail ruled out the possibility that the owner had a right to a pre-existing exclusive use.

Furthermore, the defendant did not produce any evidentiary document demonstrating exclusive ownership of the tank compartment or that the modifications carried out respected the principles of condominium sharing.

By virtue of these considerations, the Court held that the exclusive occupation of the cistern and the building modifications made were illegitimate, reaffirming the pro indiviso communion of the property.

Advertisement – Advertising

Decision and legal consequences

In light of the reasons set out, the Court of Bari pronounced a clear and decisive sentence to protect condominium rights. It was ascertained that the tank compartment underneath the building in question was a common part and, consequently, its ownership was declared pro indiviso in favor of all condominium owners. The decision underlined how the conduct of the owner who had carried out unauthorized building interventions, aimed at the exclusive use of the property, was in contrast with the rules governing condominium community.

The judge then ordered the reduction of the state of the places to pristine conditionor the restoration of the original conditions of the tank compartment, including the reopening of the hatches that allowed access to the other condominiums. This provision aims to ensure that the asset can return to being used according to its original purpose of common service for all owners of the building.

In addition to the obligation to restore the state of the premises, the Court condemned the losing party to pay the legal costs incurred by the plaintiffs, for a total amount of 3,808 euros for professional fees, in addition to 221 euros for documented disbursements.

Even the costs for the technical consultancy office (CTU), which are crucial for ascertaining the nature of the property, were charged to the party who had carried out the building modifications.