In condominiums, the distinction between innovation and modification of the common thing is not a terminological issue, but concerns the very nature of the intervention and its effects on the balance of rights between condominium owners. The Court of Cassation, over time, has clarified that innovation occurs when the completed work introduces a new element, capable of transforming the common thing in its essence or its destination. In other words, innovation is not limited to improving or making the use of the asset more convenient: it changes it, makes it something different from what it was, affecting the function that that asset performed in the economy of the building (Trib. Cagliari 30 December 2025, n. 2184).
Modification, on the other hand, is an intervention that does not alter the function of the common good, but simply regulates its use, making it safer, more efficient or more compliant with current needs. The amendment does not introduce a quid novi that transforms the nature of the good: it keeps it identical in its destination, while intervening materially on it. It is an intervention that is part of the physiology of condominium management and which, precisely because it does not affect the function of the property, does not require the strengthened majorities expected for innovations.
The story: installation of a grill on the common window
A condominium owner challenged a resolution relating to the restoration of a grille on a condominium window. According to the appellant, the intervention would have affected her individual rights, as that window represented the only access point to a room of her exclusive property. The Court accepted the appeal, declaring the entire resolution null and void.
The condominium appealed to the Court of Appeal which completely reversed the Court’s ruling. The judges of second instance held that the installation of the railing did not constitute an innovation within the meaning of the art. 1120 cc, since it did not affect the function of the window, intended to provide air and light to the stairs. Furthermore, the grating could have been opened, with the keys being handed over to the condominium owners involved, without therefore precluding the use of the common good. The Court also observed that the question relating to the ownership of the area or the alleged right of way did not fall within the scope of the challenge to the resolution.
The losing condominium owner appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation, highlighting how the Court of Appeal had erroneously classified the intervention and had not considered its right to use the window as access to its premises. The appellant also stated that the window was not condominium, but functionally connected to her property.
The decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court rejected the plea in its entirety. First, the supreme judges noted that the appellant had not indicated any concrete evidence to support the theory that the window was private. On a substantive level, the Court of Cassation reiterated a consolidated principle: a resolution which limits itself to maintaining the status quo ante relating to the use of the common thing. The affixing or restoration of a railing on a condominium window does not alter the function of the property, does not modify its destination and does not limit the enjoyment of the other condominiums. It is, therefore, an intervention that falls within the normal regulation of the use of the common thing, for which the strengthened quorum foreseen for innovations is not required.
As for the alleged right of passage through the window, the Court of Cassation observed that it presupposes a specific right to be ascertained in an independent judgment against all condominium owners, as it cannot be recognized in the context of a simple challenge to a meeting resolution. In light of these considerations, the Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, deeming the resolution which ordered the restoration of the railing to be fully legitimate (Cass. Civ., section II, 30 April 2026 n. 12101).
The installation of gates in the common areas
Like what was stated regarding the railings, it should be noted that according to the Court of Cassation the resolution with which the assembly orders the installation of gates at the entrance to the condominium area in order to regulate pedestrian and vehicular transit and avoid indiscriminate access by strangers cannot be qualified as an innovation (and therefore does not require a strengthened majority of two thirds of the value of the building). An intervention of this type, in fact, pertains to the normal regulation of the use of common property and does not alter its function or destination, nor does it involve a compression of the right of enjoyment of the condominium owners. It is, therefore, a simple organizational change, fully within the powers of the assembly with ordinary majorities (Cass. Civ., section II, 16 June 2025, n. 16148).
>> If you want to receive news like this directly on your smartphone, subscribe to our new Telegram channel!
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
