In the condominium context, disputes on the rights of view are very common, especially when a neighbor installs a work that hinders the view or change the pre -existing structure of a building. The Court of Bolognawith a recent ordinance of February 16, 2025 (NRG 5634/2024), he pronounced on a case of alleged violation of the right of view in appearance due to the installation of a pergotia in a cottedly area.

The story saw two condominiums opposed: on the one hand, an owner of the first floor that complained of the impossibility of exerting the view down due to the new structure; on the other, the neighbors of the ground floor, which supported the legitimacy of the work and preventive consent by the applicant himself.

When can a work be considered an illegal obstacle to the view? What is meant by “possessor bare” and in which cases can you act to restore the previous situation?

Let’s see in detail what the Court decided.

Advertisement – Advertising

The concrete case: the dispute of the right of view

The controversy was born when the owner of an apartment located al first floor of an condominium filed an appeal, claiming to have been stripped of its right of view in appearance. According to the appeal, the neighbors of ground floor they would have installed one iron structurelocated only 20 cm below the window threshold of the first floor.

The applicant stressed that this installation violates theart. 907 of the civil codewhich establishes the minimum distances to be respected between constructions so as not to hinder the right of view.

Article n ° 907
Distance of the constructions from the views

When the right to have directed views towards the nearby fund, the owner of this has been purchased cannot make at a distance of a distance of three meters, measured pursuant to art. 905
If you want to support the new construction on the wall in which the said direct or oblique views are, it must stop at least three meters below their threshold.

In addition, it highlighted that:

  • The work was anchored permanently to the groundmaking it a permanent and not occasional intervention.
  • Subsequently, a bandinella was added which united the structure to the facade of the building, aggravating visual obstruction.
  • Has never given its consent to the installationand the structure would represent not only a limitation of the right of view, but also a potential danger to safetyfacilitating the access of strangers to its property.

Having not obtained any feedback from the request for removal of the work, sent by registered letter, the applicant then started areintegration action in possession pursuant to art. 1168 ccasking the Court to order the demolition of the structure and to restore the previous state.

Furthermore, he requested the imposition of a Daily penalty of 100 euros for each day of delay in the elimination of the work.

Advertisement – Advertising

The defense of resistants: consent and conformity of the work

The owners of the apartment on the ground floor contested the accusations by claiming that the installation of the Pergotenda was completely lawful and compliant with the building regulations. According to their version, the applicant had been previously informed of the work and had even expressed his consent. In particular, they produced a conversation in court in the condominium chat on WhatsApp theJanuary 11, 2023in which they had described the project in detail and annex explanatory photographs.

Communication contained one explicit request for approval aimed at the other condominiums, including the applicant, who had responded with a positive comment and an emotion with the raised thumb. This was interpreted as a clear signal of consent.

Another central point of their defense concerned the nature of the work: the pergotenda installed in the courtyard could not be considered a stable construction, as it was a self -supporting structure with a retractable sheet, not permanently fixed to the ground. For this reason, according to the resistants, the distances provided for in article 907 of the civil code did not apply.

In addition, the building regulation of the Municipality of Bologna does not provide for particular restrictions for the installation of curtains or pergolas of this type.

The resistants also pointed out that Pergotenda did not cover all the applicant’s windows, but only a portion of the courtyard, leaving the other views free. His presence served to guarantee greater privacy and to create a repaired space for his younger daughter, who used it for postural gymnastics exercises due to health problems.

Despite their belief that the work was legitimate, to meet the applicant’s requests, they had still removed the bandinella that united the structure to the facade of the building, even if its only purpose was to protect the wall from the perception of rainwater.

Finally, in the event that the Court had ordered the removal of the Pergotenda, the resistants asked for the expenses to be incurred by the applicant, believing that, having initially approved the work, it could not now claim their exclusive responsibility for disassembly.

Advertisement – Advertising

The judge’s decision: when consent excludes the bare

After examining the arguments of both sides, the Bologna court has rejected the appealbelieving that the conditions for the reintegration in possession did not exist. The judge founded his decision mainly on the fact that the installation of the Pergotenda could not be considered an act of Violent or clandestine barean essential element for obtaining the possessory protection provided for by article 1168 of the Civil Code.

One of the most relevant aspects that emerged in the procedure was the initial consent expressed by the applicant. The Court considered that the communication sent through the condominium chat provided anclear and detailed information on the future installation of the structure. In addition, the judge underlined that the applicant’s response, who had expressed a favorable attitude, excluded the possibility of considering the intervention as a unilateral action imposed by resistant.

Another decisive point was the fact that Pergotenda, due to its characteristics, could not be considered a real construction subject to the distances provided for by article 907 of the civil code. Being a structure self -supporting, with retractable and not anchored sheet permanently to the groundwas among the works which, according to the building regulation of the Municipality of Bologna, do not require particular authorizations nor are they subject to restrictions on minimum distances.

Finally, the judge recalled some judgments of the Court of Cassation, according to which the Consent of the owner excludes the Animus Spoliandithat is, the intention of depriving some of its own right in an illegal way. As a result, one could not speak of an illegitimate bare, but rather of a late dispute of a work that the applicant had initially accepted.

In light of these considerations, the court therefore has rejected the request for removal of Pergotena and sentenced the applicant to pay the legal feesquantified in 4.237 eurosin addition to the ancillary charges.