The 2003 amnesty and the limits for cubic capacity and compliance with regulations
The art. 32 of the decree, Measures for urban, environmental and landscape redevelopment, for encouraging the repression of illegal construction, as well as for the definition of illegal construction and occupations of state-owned areas”, with paragraphs 26 to 50 provided for the possibility of remediating illegal works completed by 31 March 2003, with precise volumetric and territorial limits.
Always excluded: properties not compliant with anti-seismic regulations, constructions on state-owned areas or those of public bodies without onerous concessions, works on areas with landscape, hydrogeological or environmental constraints. Compliance with current building and urban planning regulations is also mandatory. For example, in 2002 an owner closed a 25 m2 veranda on the ground floor of his home with frames and glass, without requesting a building permit. The work can be remedied as of March 31, 2003 as:
- Formal abuse: work created without a permit
- Substantial compliance: the intervention complies with:
- Distances from the boundaries foreseen by the municipal PRG
- Maximum heights permitted by the urban planning area
- Building indexes of the area (25 m2 is within the permitted volume)
- Already existing residential use
In practice, the work was “illegitimate” only due to the lack of a building permit, while still respecting all the urban planning regulations in force at the time of its construction: it does not create volumetric abuses, does not violate distances, does not alter intended uses in contrast with the master plan. If the same veranda had violated even just one of the urban planning parameters (e.g. distance from the border of 2 meters instead of the 5 required by the PRG), the work would not have been eligible for amnesty, because it did not comply with the 2003 urban planning regulations.
The no from the Campania region and the ruling of the Constitutional Court
In 2003 the Campania region, led by Antonio Bassolino, resisted the national building amnesty. The regional council approved resolution 2827/2003, followed by regional law 10/2004, with which it declared the amnesty provided for by decree-law 269/2003 inapplicable in the Campania region. At the same time, the region presented an appeal to the Constitutional Court against the state legislation.
The Council intervened with sentences 196/2004, 198/2004 and 199/2004, declaring illegitimate both various provisions of article 32 in the part in which they did not recognize adequate powers to the regions, and the Campania regional regulations which had excluded the applicability of the amnesty. Ruling 196/2004 redesigned the amnesty, attributing broad powers to the regions to modulate volumetric limits and types of remediable abuses, but confirming the legitimacy of the state provision. However, when the Court ruled, the deadline for applying for amnesty had already expired.
The citizens of Campania who had submitted an application and paid the contributions found themselves unable to continue the procedures, unlike what happened in the other Italian regions. According to parliamentary questions presented in subsequent years, the affair involved several thousand families.
The possible reopening of the deadlines
The amendment, therefore, reopens the terms of the procedure provided for by article 32 of law 326/2003. With the new provisions, as in 2003, it would be up to each region to implement the legislation with regional law, determining the possibilities, conditions and methods of eligibility for amnesty.
In addition to Campania, on the national front the reopening could also affect situations that have remained suspended in the other regions for procedural reasons or due to regulatory developments following the rulings of the constitutional court. The court, in 2004, had in fact declared several parts of article 32 illegitimate, imposing modifications which at the time left some intermediate situations open.
Remediable works and requirements
Here is the list of interventions that could fall within the amnesty if the terms were reopened without inserting other conditions.
Volumetric limits (work together)
| Type of intervention | Volumetric limit |
| Extension of existing building | Max 30% original volume and max 750 m3 |
| New residential construction | Max 750 m3 per single request and max 3,000 m3 overall |
Types of abuse that can be remedied (Annex 1)
| Typology | Description | Where remediable |
| No. 1-2-3 | • works without title • works different from the title • renovations in absence/differences |
The entire national territory (including restricted areas) |
| No. 4-5-6 | • restoration and conservative rehabilitation • extraordinary maintenance • works not evaluable in m3/m2 |
Restricted areas (only if required by regional law) |
Works excluded from the amnesty (paragraph 27)
| Cause exclusion | Detail |
| A) criminal convictions | Works carried out by those convicted under art. 416-bis (mafia), 648-bis, 648-ter (money laundering) |
| B) seismic risk | Impossibility of anti-seismic adaptation according to opcm 3274/2003 |
| C) state-owned areas | On state/public authority areas without onerous concession |
| D) restricted areas | On areas with landscape, hydrogeological and park restrictions if: • restriction existing before the work • work without title or discrepancy • conflict with urban planning regulations |
| E) monuments | Properties declared a national monument or of particular interest |
Procedure
| I wait | Condition |
| Request | Within established deadlines (extended several times with subsequent legislative decrees) |
| Oblation | Determined according to Annex 1 – non-reducible |
| Opinions | Necessary for restricted areas |
Basic time requirement: works completed by March 31, 2003.
We await news.
>> If you want to receive news like this directly on your smartphone, subscribe to our new Telegram channel!
