Landscape protection is one of the key principles of our system, especially in areas subjected to environmental constraints. A recent ruling by the Council of State addressed the case of one abusive closure built on a commercial property in a restricted area of the Municipality of Pozzuoli.
The intervention, which included the installation of railings and shutters without the necessary authorizations, was judged illegitimate, resulting in a demolition order.
Let’s look at the case in detail.
Advertisement – Advertising
The case: unauthorized changes in a protected area
The case arises from building interventions carried out on a commercial property located in the Municipality of Pozzuoli, in an area subject to landscape restrictions since 1957. The works, carried out without the necessary permit, included the installation of iron railings, rolling shutters on several sides of the building and awnings. Although these interventions may seem modest, their execution resulted in a significant transformation of the appearance of the place.
The regulations in force, in fact, provide that any work in restricted areas must be authorized, to guarantee the protection of the landscape and prevent abuse.
The Municipality of Pozzuoli, having ascertained the lack of authorizations, issued a demolition order, contesting the illegitimacy of the interventions. In response, the party involved had submitted an application for amnesty pursuant to Presidential Decree 380/2001 and Legislative Decree 42/2004, arguing that the works were pertinent and not subject to the more restrictive authorization regime.
However, the question was not acceptedsince the landscape restriction imposes stringent obligations and does not allow margins of tolerance for works not previously authorized.
The Regional Administrative Court (TAR) had already rejected the appeal against the demolition order, highlighting that no proof had been provided of the presentation of an actual request for amnesty. Subsequently, the Council of State confirmed this position, declaring that in such circumstances demolition represents a necessary act to restore the state of the places and safeguard the landscape.
Advertisement – Advertising
The ruling of the Council of State: a confirmation of landscape protection
Sentence no. 6697/2024, pronounced by the Council of State on 10 December 2024, put a full stop on a complex matter relating to building abuses in areas subject to landscape restrictions. The decision, issued by the Sixth Section and reported by the panel chaired by the Council. Sergio De Felice rejected the appeal against the previous ruling of the Campania TAR.
At the center of the issue was the demolition order issued by the Municipality of Pozzuoli, which ordered the restoration of the state of the places for a series of works carried out in the absence of the necessary building and landscape permits.
The judges highlighted that the illegal works – railings, rolling shutters and awnings – were not just marginal modifications, but interventions which, due to their size and visual impact, involved a significant transformation and durability of the constrained area. Based on consolidated jurisprudence, including sentence no. 62/2013 and plenary meeting no. 9/2017 of the Council of State, the Court established that the demolition order, in situations of this type, does not require a specific justification on the public interest, as the obligation to protect the landscape is prevalent and binding.
A crucial aspect of the decision was the confirmation that, in presence of landscape constraintsthe lack of prior authorization makes any possibility of subsequent regularization or amnesty impossible. The reference standard, art. 27, paragraph 2, of Presidential Decree 380/2001, gives the municipal administration a power-duty of supervision, imposing the adoption of repressive measures even in the case of works apparently exemptable with tools such as the DIA, if they lack landscape authorization.
Finally, the Council of State clarified that the delay in adopting the demolition measure does not affect its legitimacy, as the public interest in landscape protection remains a priority. The sentence concluded with the appellant being sentenced to pay 3,000 euros in court costs, a further sign of the firmness with which the Court intends to protect compliance with building and landscape regulations.
