The obligation to display a construction site sign is often one of the first things to consider when starting construction work, whether it is a simple renovation or a more complex intervention. The presence of this sign, in fact, is not only required to inform the public about the work in progress, but also represents a regulatory requirement, failure to comply with which may result in sanctions.
However, it is not always clear when and how this obligation must be respected, especially for interventions that do not require a building permit but can be carried out via SCIA (Certified Report of Start of Activity).
But when is it mandatory to display the construction site sign? What are the consequences in case of violation?
Here is what the Court of Cassation recently ruled.
Advertisement – Advertising
The regulatory context: Presidential Decree 380/01 and municipal regulations
The reference legislation for building interventions is the Consolidated Building Act (Presidential Decree 380/2001), which establishes the rules for the execution of the works, the responsibilities of the subjects involved and the sanctions applicable in case of violation.
The art. 44 of Presidential Decree 380/01, in particular, establishes that the violation of building regulations, also relating to the display of the construction site sign, can be punished with criminal sanctions. However, the obligation to affix the sign is often defined in municipal building regulations, which vary from municipality to municipality, and which establish in detail what information must be present and in which specific cases it is necessary.
In general, the sign must state:
- The type of intervention underway.
- The details of the qualification (Building Permit, SCIA, etc.).
- The names of the subjects involved (client, works manager, designer, executor of the works).
- Other information required by current regulations.
This regulatory heterogeneity can generate confusion, especially when you find yourself operating in Municipalities that do not clearly specify the obligation for works subject to SCIA. And it is precisely on this point that the recent ruling of the Supreme Court has clarified.
Advertisement – Advertising
The ruling of the Supreme Court n. 31356/2021: sign obligation also for the SCIA
The ruling of the Court of Cassation n. 31356 of 2021 clarified a fundamental aspect regarding the obligation to display the construction site sign for building interventions authorized with SCIA (Certified Report of Start of Activity). In the specific case, the client had contested his responsibility by arguing that the applicable municipal regulation did not explicitly mention the SCIA among the titles that required the affixing of the sign.
Consequently, the defense argued that this obligation could not be automatically extended to this type of intervention.
However, the Court rejected this interpretation, underlining that, although the SCIA was not expressly mentioned in the municipal regulation, the nature and purpose of the obligation remain unchanged. According to the Court, art. 44 of Presidential Decree 380/01 and the municipal building regulation must be interpreted systematically, also including the new qualifications (such as the SCIA), which have evolved over time, replacing the old terminologies.
Therefore, the obligation to display the sign applies regardless of the type of qualification, provided that the municipal regulation provides for it for interventions of the same type.
This decision reiterated an important principle: failure to comply with local regulatory provisions on the affixing of construction site signs still constitutes an offence, punishable pursuant to art. 44, paragraph 1, letter. a), of Presidential Decree 380/2001, also for works carried out through SCIA.
In other words, the violation exists whenever the municipal building regulation provides for this obligation, without distinguishing between building permit and SCIA.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGMENT
Advertisement – Advertising
The question of error of law and its practical implications
Another interesting aspect of the ruling concerns the question of error of law, raised by the defence. The client had argued that failure to comply with the obligation to display the sign could not be considered attributable to him, as had relied on professionals in the sector to manage all regulatory and procedural aspects of the construction site.
This argument, however, was rejected by the Court.
According to the Supreme Court, the error of law pursuant to art. 47 of the Criminal Code can only be invoked in the presence of objective regulatory uncertainty which cannot be overcome with normal diligence. In the case in question, the municipal regulation, although not very clear on the obligation to affix the sign in the event of SCIA, was nevertheless accessible and interpretable, and the client had the obligation to verify its contents.
The Court therefore confirmed that the qualification of “client” always implies a direct responsibility in ensuring compliance with building and urban planning regulations.
This passage of the sentence represents a warning for all those who work in the sector: simply relying on professionals does not exempt the client from the responsibility of complying with the regulations, especially when the consequences of any violations are punishable by criminal law. It is therefore essential that all those involved in a construction site are aware of the relevant obligations, even with regard to apparently marginal details such as the display of the construction site sign.