The abusive buildings represent a recurring theme in the panorama of Italian construction, often the subject of disputes between citizens, businesses and municipal administrations. The recent sentence of Tar Campania n. 854/2025 It offers an important interpretation of the regulations on building abuses and sanatorium procedures.
The case in question concerns the creation of a Mezzanine of 100 square meters within an industrial warehouse, built without a preventive building permit. The Municipality has issued a demolition order, contested by the manufacturer, which supported the validity of the wake in amnesty and the seismic authorization obtained later.
However, the TAR confirmed the demolition, reaffirming the key principles of the urban discipline.
But what exactly establishes this sentence? What are the implications for the owners and companies that are in similar situations?
Advertisement – Advertising
The facts of the dispute
The story originates from a provision of the Municipality with which the demolition of a 100 sqm mezzanine Made inside an industrial shed without a valid building permit. The demolition injunction, notified to the owner of the structure, led the company responsible for the works to submit an appeal to the Tar Campaniaasking for the cancellation of the municipal provision.
In its appeal, the company claimed that the demolition order was illegitimate For three main reasons.
The first concerned the alleged violation of the right of defenseas the order was not accompanied by the inspection report, which would allow the company to analyze and contest the accusations made by the administration.
The second reason was linked to the alleged double compliance of the work, or the compatibility of the intervention with urban planning regulations both at the time of construction and at the time of the request for amnesty.
Finally, the third point on which the appeal was based concerned theobtain a seismic authorization and the presentation of a Wake in amnestyelements that, according to the company, should have led to the cancellation of the demolition order.
However, during the judgment, the Municipality it did not courtleaving the TAR the task of evaluating exclusively on the basis of the documentation presented by the applicant. This aspect, although it may seem in favor of society, did not affect the final outcomesince the Court directly examined the legitimacy of the demolition order in the light of current legislation, without the need for further clarifications by the municipal administration.
In light of these elements, the TAR therefore issued a decision destined to make school in the field of Building and amnesty abusesestablishing key principles on Validity of the wake in amnesty and on the limits of the seismic authorization compared to the urban discipline.
Advertisement – Advertising
The reasons for the sentence
The Tar Campania, with the sentence no. 854/2025, rejected the appealconfirming the legitimacy of the demolition order. According to the judges, the contested work was carried out In the absence of a valid building permitcondition that makes it abusive in all respects.
The applicant company had presented one Wake in amnestybut this tool is not enough to automatically remedy the abuse, since a explicit provision by the Administration which certifies the conformity of the work to current regulations. In the case in question, the Municipality had not expressed any opinion on the matter, thus leaving the situation of irregularities unchanged.
Another central point of the decision concerns theseismic authorization obtained subsequently by the company, which according to the TAR cannot be considered a valid element to justify the building intervention. This type of authorization, in fact, has the sole purpose of verifying the structural safety of the work e does not replace the building permit necessary for the legitimate realization of the works.
The judges also clarified that the Wake in amnesty it does not equate to an automatic regularization of the abuse, unless the work respects the principle of double complianceor compatibility both with the legislation in force at the time of construction, and with that in force at the time of the request for amnesty. Furthermore, unlike other regulatory tools, such as theassessment of conformity pursuant to art. 36 of Presidential Decree 380/2001the wake in amnesty does not provide for the implicit refusal in case of silence of the administration.
This means that, in the absence of an explicit response by the Municipality, Building abuse cannot be considered remedied and the demolition order remains valid.
Finally, the TAR stressed that the presentation of a wake in amnesty does not automatically cancel a demolition orderbut only suspend the effects until the conclusion of the administrative procedure. If the Municipality were to deny the amnesty, the demolition of the work would resume vigor without the need for further measures.
Advertisement – Advertising
Consequences for citizens and businesses
The case analyzed demonstrates how the creation of a work without a Building permit expose the owners and companies to demolition measureswhich cannot be automatically canceled by the subsequent presentation of a Wake in amnesty.
For citizens and entrepreneurs in the sector, it is essential to understand that the wake in amnesty does not represent one Immediate and guaranteed solution for the regularization of a building abuse. In order for an intervention to be remedied, it must comply with the requirement of double compliancethat is, to be compatible both with the legislation in force at the time of its realization, and with that in force at the time of the request for amnesty. In addition, it is essential to wait for an answer explicit of the municipal administration, since the simple silence It does not equate to a tacit acceptance.
Another element to consider is theseismic authorizationwhich, as highlighted by the TAR, does not replace the building permit. This means that even if a work has been considered in accordance with structural safety rules, this does not automatically imply that it can be considered legitimate from an urban planning point of view.
In practical terms, this sentence underlines the importance of act in advancerequesting all the necessary building securities before starting any intervention. The idea of building a work and trying to sanction it later can prove to be riskyas the municipal administrations have the power to deny regularization, making the demolition of illegal works inevitable.
