Simplification in the presence of building license
Before the entry into force of the Salva Casa, on the basis of the provisions of art. 9-bis of yours “Administrative documentation and the legitimate state of the properties” The legitimate state of a property had to be certified:
- from the qualification that provided for its construction or that legitimate it e
- from what he has governed the last building intervention.
With the innovations introduced we move from a “e” to an “o”, so that to certify the legitimate state in the event of subsequent interventions on the property, the last document issued by the Administration is sufficient.
Attention, however, this simplification is applicable only to properties equipped with a building permitas for properties in an era in which it was not mandatory to acquire the title, the previous rules are confirmed. The simplification, therefore, does not involve the most dated properties for which archival research continues to be due.
Administration obligations and limits to checks
The simplification was introduced as the administration has carried out all checks at the time of issuing the latest building permitthat is, the new procedure is allowed “Provided that the competent administration, during the release, has verified the legitimacy of the previous titles”. And this implies that if a verification has not been done in its time, it can no longer be done now. In essence in the presence of any unprecedented discrepancies When issuing previous titles, The Administration will not be able to contest there lack of legitimate state of the property when a new authorization is required.
For example in the case of an owner who presents one Wake for an intervention (T4) On a house affected in the past by works of:
- expansion (T1);
- consolidation (T2);
- renovation (T3);
The Administration will not be able to unionize situations of abstractly interviewed discrepancies between the construction and the release of the T1 title or between T1 and T2 or between T3 and T4, which would have allowed only at the time of presentation of the relative requests to deny these securities. May only verify whether between the T3 title (which is the title with which the legitimate state of the property is certified) and the design documentation presented for the issue of the T4 title are intercourse of different situations which require supplementary checks.
Scar and silence-assent
Speaking of the legitimacy of the securities, however the MIT underlines that these, including the wake, can also be formed on the basis of the principle Principle of silence-assent. It is a consideration that has aroused many perplexities, but in reality for the wake the silence-assent is in fact provided for by articles 2 and 19 of law 241/1990 in the field of administrative procedure (legislation referred to by MIT in the guidelines) which provides for an ordinary term of thirty days for the conclusion of the procedurewithout prejudice to the administration’s right, within the term of sixty days from receipt of the reportto adopt prohibition measures to continue the activity and to remove any harmful effects of it.
Overcome this expiration The administration can only assert the right to self -protection within a maximum of twelve months.
Taxation and legitimate state
In addition to the actual building security securities that allow to certify the legitimate state, the MIT specifies that it can also contribute to the certificate Payment of penalties for taxationthat is to say the sanctions due in the presence of abuses that cannot even be eliminated in order not to put the property at risk (penalties provided for in articles 33, 34, 37, paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 6). In this case, the discrepancies subject to taxation can be considered fully healthy For the purpose of demonstrating the legitimate state, overcoming the uncertainties resulting from the previous legislation, which led to “tolerate”, but not to “remedy” the discrepancy in question. However, the payment of sanctions alone cannot be used to demonstrate, upstream, the legitimacy of previous titles. The last document that authorized the works will also be needed, which were then carried out in discrepancies and therefore the subject of sanctions. For example, explains MIT, in the case of a property affected by following interventions:
(to) constructionafter issuing the building permit;
(b) extraordinary maintenance ‘heavy’ on the entire property, after wake;
(c) discrepancy compared to the wakefollowed by the payment of the sanction provided for by art. 37 of the yours;
The legitimate state of the property will be that established by the SCIA (letter b). However, having been carried out a different intervention compared to this, the state of fact will not coincide with that of law and, therefore, it will also be necessary to support the sanction to the trail.
The declaration on tolerances
Another title that can compete in the legitimate state but alone it is not enough to certify it, it is the declaration of tolerances that the technician can release against irregularities in the property that do not represent building offenses and therefore do not require any amnesty.
In this case, the legitimate state of the property is that which results from the last title issued by the Administration, combined with the declaration certifying that with respect to what is indicated in the project, small irregularities have been committed.
