The defendant's position: compliance with the rules and no violation of decorum
The defendant claims that the shed built was duly reported to the municipality and was already present at the time of purchase of the home, thus suggesting that this is not a recent or unauthorized change. Furthermore, we read in the sentence that the modification works were carried out in full compliance with current regulations, highlighting that there was no violation of the laws applicable during their execution.
The changes have been made after obtaining permission from the municipality, indicating that there has been formal approval for the changes made. The works created they did not violate architectural decorum of the building, suggesting that the modifications have not compromised the aesthetics or structural integrity of the building significantly.
In essence, the defendant claims to have acted in legitimate and compliant manner to the standards, and that the changes have not affected the building either from an aesthetic or safety point of view.
The position of the plaintiff: violation of the ban on the assembly
The plaintiff claims that the defendant carried out work in his apartment, located on the third floor of the building, which they have modified the original conformation of the property. These changes include the creation of an L-shaped roof on the terrace, despite the prohibition expressed by the condominium assembly.
At the end of 2016, the defendant undertook works to recover the surfaces in the attic rooms, which were completed in 2017. These works transformed part of the covered terrace in the living room and have included theopening of new windows in correspondence with the bedroom and bathroom.
The works carried out by the defendant have been carried out in violation of anti-seismic regulationswhich may have compromised the static conditions of the building.
The plaintiff therefore requests the Court to condemn the defendant to demolition and/or removal of the works carried out in violation of the condominium regulations and current legislation, and the restoration of the state of the places existing prior to such works.
The Court's response
The Court responds by accepting the plaintiff's request, establishing that: the intervention carried out by the defendant must be qualified as superelevation, considering the transformation of the pre-existing premises through the increase in surfaces and volumes. This elevation occurred in violation of anti-seismic regulations and without prior verification of the static conditions of the building.
The Court then underlines that the superelevation is not allowed by the static conditions of the building and the anti-seismic safety of the work carried out and of the entire building has not been demonstrated. Furthermore, the intervention has altered both the architectural aspect and the static conditions of the building.
In absence of preventive fact-finding investigations and technical checks regarding the impact on permanent loads and accidental overloads of the building, the intervention has caused a static injury.
Consequently, the Court orders the defendant to proceed with the immediate demolition of the building built on the pavement of its exclusive property and condemns the defendant to payment of expenses of litigation and the costs of official technical consultancy (CTU), thus recognizing the legitimacy of the concerns expressed by the plaintiff regarding the legality and safety of the modifications made by the defendant.
