Criminal liability of condominiums for omitted works: what the Cassation says

Administrator and condominiums: who responds in case of danger?

The rule distinguishes between situations that involve only one potential threat for the construction (administrative sanction) and those in which the danger becomes concrete and involves people’s safety (criminal sanction). This approach aims to protect both the stability of buildings and public safety, underlining theimportance of responsible management.

In the condominium The condominium administrator has an obligation to guarantee the safety of the buildingboth for the protection of condominiums and passers -by. However, this it does not mean that it must automatically be considered responsible Pursuant to article 677 of the Italian Civil Code, nor act as a “criminal shield” for the owners of the property. In this regard, a Recent decision of the Court of Cassation (sentence of 19 March 2025 n. 14225). This sentence reiterates the responsibility of the owners in guaranteeing the safety of the buildings and in the fully fully for the obligations imposed by the authorities in order to protect public safety.

The story

The Court of Naples has declared two condominiums Responsible for the contravention provided for by article 677 of the Italian Civil Code, as, as owners of apartments located in the condominium, in a state of instability, they did not carry out the necessary works to eliminate the danger for public safety. These interventions had been imposed with several union ordinances ignored by recipients. Granted them the generic mitigating factors, the Court sentenced each condominium to the Penalty of 400 € of fine.

The elusive ones subjected the question to the Cassation. In particular, the applicants contest, among other things, a gap in the motivation of the contested decision, underlining that The Court would have failed to evaluate a decisive aspect: the renovation works, both ordinary and extraordinary, were not performed because one condominium prevented others from regularly conferred to the companies in charge. This circumstance, according to the applicants, should have been considered by the judge for the purpose of evaluating their responsibility, directly affecting the possibility of fulfilling the obligations imposed.

In any case, the unsuccessful stressed that, according to the report of the Central Environment and Protection of the territory, the building abuses perpetrated by the condominium contrary to the works They had damaged the facade of the building, causing the sub -vertical underworld on the architrave of the balcony on the first floor. This damage had made it necessary tointervention of the territorial bodyAlthough an effective danger for public safety never emerged. It is added that a company had been identified to carry out the work but the same condominium, refusing to pay the corresponding amount of the works fee, had prevented the execution of the restoration works. Furthermore, the failure to admission a technician which could have reported regarding the state of the places and responsibilities of the condominium contrary to the works. Finally, it complains that the Court had not argued regarding the request for application of the cause of non -punishment, ritually advanced in consideration of the collaborative conduct of the applicants and the lack of a concrete social disvalue deriving from the conduct.

The decision

The Court of Cassation was wrong to the applicants. According to the supreme judges, the reasons exposed by the defense of the applicants highlight how the failure to carry out the intervention cannot be attributed to a situation of objective impossibility, without the responsibility of the applicants, not even in terms of guilt. In fact, the Cassation underlines the numerous initiatives that the condominiums interested in the works could have adopted to overcome the obstacle represented by the failure to collaboration of the condominium contrary to the works.

In the opinion of the supreme judges The condominiums in favor of the works could have anticipated the share of the expenses paid by the participant to the condominium against the interventionsto then proceed with the forced recovery of the sum due. Not only that. According to the Court of Cassation, the favorable could also have contact the judicial authority to obtain a provision that forced the condominium to pay the sum necessary for the construction of the works. In any case – as was rightly highlighted – the obligation, criminally sanctioned by art. 677 of the Cp, to carry out the work necessary to avoid the danger of ruin, in the event of non -formation of the assembly will, on the individual condominium, regardless of the attribute to the same of the dangerous situation.

The administratoron the other hand, in order to go free from responsibility, must intervene on the effects of ruininterdicting, where this is possible, access or transit of people. The appeals have therefore been rejected, with consequent condemnation of the applicants to pay procedural costs.