The story
A condominium filed an appeal to challenge a condominium resolution, limited to point 9, asking for the declaration of nullity or the cancellation of the same. In particular, the actor believed it was invalidates the assembly decision to have the railway placed in front of its entrance door removed at its expense. The condominium was formed and proposed, among other things, an exception of deficiency of interest to act by the actor.
The decision
The court was wrong to the condominiumdeclaring nothing the contested resolution limited to point 9, and condemning the defendant to reimburse the actress the costs of the litigation and the expenses of CTU. As a preliminary, the judge considered the exception of deficiency of interest to act by the spoken actor; In fact, in point 9 of the contested resolution, the condominiums present voted in favor of the proposal of a condominium (which abstained) to remove the railing at the expense of the actor, who voted against the decision. In any case The CTU has ascertained that the railway in question (with 90 degree opening on the staircase, placed on the wall of the actor’s relevance and without protrusions) has not occupied common portionssuch as the area of the landing for condominium use or the common facade, nor has he interfered with the pedestrian crossing of users; The technical advice carried out in progress of which it then excluded that said artifact has led to a static prejudice As the same has not been built in the adjacency of supporting structures such as pillars, beams or balconies.
The Court also highlighted that the railing did not violate the architectural decoration, as it conforms to the original aesthetic of the building. It was in fact ascertained that the actor has maintained the Aesthetic characteristics of the door compartmentlike glass inlays and decorative iron bars. Ascertained that the railing did not invade common parts, injured the architectural decoration or endangered the static of the palace, the decident stated that point 9 of the contested resolution represents an ‘interference of the condominium on a part of exclusive propertywith the consequence that it has been declared nothing.
The position of the jurisprudence
The Cassation specified that There is a decoration for all buildings and not only for those buildings that cover a particular value of historical or artistic interest: The popular building is also equipped with architectural decoration because even the most modest construction has still structural characteristics such as to give the property a particular physiognomy susceptible to be damaged by innovations on portions of exclusive property or on the common parts, even if these new works bring particular utilities to the individual condominium or the condominium.
The jurisprudence has sanctioned the legitimacy of a resolution concerning the installation of anti -intrusion railings when, although there is an aesthetic prejudice, this is so modest and negligible as to exclude an economic prejudice, being the slight change widely compensated by the utility deriving to all condominiums (App. Milan 22 May 1998, n. 1444). More recently it has been specified that The installation of railings that are inserted in the condominium facade without changing the architectural and aesthetic lines is legitimate (Trib. Turin 6 November 2024, n. 5573: in the present case, the railings did not alter or expand the opening of the window and did not create additional volume; they also had a linear design consisting of horizontal and vertical elements that recalled the shape of the building and were of the same color as the railings of the balconies. condominiums to make a similar use of the facade by installing similar protective artifacts).
A railing was recently considered that was not placed by the condominium on the external facade of the building, but but at the entrance of the internal door of the home owned by the resistant; The judge observed that in the condominium in the condominium, different doors were already installed from each other, not only in wood but also in iron and glass, and that On the facade of the building there were already rallies. In any case, it highlighted that the condominium provided for the installation of said ravine To protect your safety, having undergone multiple effort attemptsthis circumstance this not contested by the applicant (Court of Prato Ordinance 29 March 2023). In this regard, it was also stated that the protection of the safety and private property of the condominiums must prevail over the architectural decor (Milan Trib. 17 January 2020, section XIII, n. 451).
Finally, remember that In the presence of a clause of the contractual regulation that limits the installation of railings, The individual condominiums must respect this clause, regardless of the actual impact of the protections on the conformation of the property.
