The two jurisprudential guidelines
According to a jurisprudential orientation, theart. 30 of Legislative Decree 69 of 2013, as non -entrustment ruleapplies to the future “If in and in that the presupposed facts have come up with, all, in the vigor of the new provisions. Consequently, it must be considered that Only in relation to collapsed or demolished buildings in the period following the entry into force of the law n. 98/2013, of conversion of Legislative Decree no. 69/2013, it would be possible that the reconstruction (not contextual) as a building renovation was absent pursuant to art. 3, paragraph 1, lett. d) of Presidential Decree no. 380/2001, as amended by art. 30, paragraph 1, lett. a) of Legislative Decree no. 69/2013“(2).
A second thesis, however, recently highlighted by Council of State, section IV, in the sent. April 3, 2025, n. 2857believes that The rule can also apply to buildings already collapsed/demolished before the intervention of the legislator. And in fact, as specified also by the Court of Cassation, the “retroactivity Legislative, in fact, is to be appreciated as they exist when a provision of the law introduces, on the basis of a new legal qualification of facts and relationships already subject to the imperium of a previous law, a new discipline of the effects that have already been exhausted under the previous law, or a new discipline of all effects of a relationship placed before the entry into force of the new rule, without distinction between effects that occurred before or posteriorly to the new provisionalthough it is possible to separate on one from each other and not existing among them a relationship of inherence or dependence. On the other hand, it is not given to recognize the retroactivity of a rule when it disciplies status, situations and relationships which, while constituting the sensu side effects of a previous generator made (foreseen and considered within the framework of a different norm), are distinguished ontologically and functionally (regardless of their connection with a said generator fact), as susceptible to a new regulation through the exercise of powers and faculties not consumed under the previous discipline.“(3).
In the present case, the standard intervened on the qualification of a building intervention, that of building renovationapplicable to all the conduct, faculties and powers that have not yet consumed fully under the previous discipline. It follows that the rule will apply both to the (already) buildings collapsed or demolished on the date of entry into force of the standard, and to those collapsed or demolished after the entry into force of the standard same, provided that, after the entry into force of the latter, the interventions aimed at recovery of buildings, or parts of them, through their reconstruction, provided that it is possible to ascertain their pre -existing consistency.
The consideration that before the entry into force of Legislative Decree 69 of 2013, the building renovation presupposed a particular one does not assume any importance. continuity relationship Between pre -existing building and building resulting from the renovation, in such a way that the two operations, that is, demolition and reconstruction, took place in a single context.
Conclusions
The fact that art. 30, paragraph 1, lett. a) of Legislative Decree 69 of 2013 has affected the requirement of continuity between collapse/demolition and restoration, also allowing to create, as a building renovation, “The interventions aimed at restoring buildings, or parts of them, possibly collapsed or demolished, through their reconstruction, provided it is possible to ascertain their pre -existing consistency”, That is, those interventions in which the reconstruction/restoration is not necessarily already scheduled at the time when the pre -existing building is demolished or collapsesdoes not prevent you from applying the aforementioned rule also to the buildings already collapsed or demolished at the time of the entry into force of the standard itself.
The building renovation, in fact, concerns the interventions aimed at transform building bodies By means of a systematic set of works that can lead to a building organism in whole or in part different from the previous one and among these interventions there are also those of restoring a building through its reconstruction, regardless of the temporal circumstanceirrelevant for the purpose of applying the standard, that the building has not yet collapsed at the time of the entry into force of the standard itself.
What matters is that the restoration of the building takes place after the entry into force of the standardremaining irrelevant to the circumstance that concerns buildings “possibly (already) collapsed or demolished“. The use of the ancestor”possibly“Confirms that the collapse or demolition of the building may also have already occurred at the time of the entry into force of the standard, but this aspect does not represent a opposing profile for the operation of the new notion of building renovation.
There ratio of the regulatory intervention of 2013 is, moreover, that of expand the application scope of the notion of building renovationby buying all the interventions for the restoration of buildings or parts of them:
a) already collapsed or demolished at the time of the entry into force of the standard;
b) collapsed or demolished after the entry into force of the standard;
c) not necessarily collapsed or demolished.
Moreover, the element that distinguishes the building renovation from the new construction is the pre -existence of the artifact and the possibility of reaching an organism in whole or in part different from what already exists, elements that exist also in relation to the buildings collapsed or demolished before the entry into force of the standard, provided, as the norm specifies, it is possible to ascertain the pre -existing consistency.
The first jurisprudential thesis would lend itself to an unreasonable judgmentbecause it would deal with situations substantially superimposable in a different way: the discipline introduced in 2013 could not be applied to collapsed buildings before the standard, which concerns the hypotheses of building renovation of collapsed or demolished buildings. Unreasonableness that would be even more evident if the restoration interventions of collapsed buildings close to the entry into force of the standard and built buildings shortly afterwards.
Notes
(1) converted with amendments by law 9 August 2013, n. 98.
(2) Council of State, section V, sent. January 8, 2023, n. 616.
(3) See United Sections, sent. January 28, 2021, n. 2061.
In collaboration with Studiolegalepetrulli.it
