When renovating works are carried out on a property, it is essential to comply with the rights of neighbors and current regulations. An intervention that modifies the state of the places can in fact generate conflicts, especially if it alters the privacy or the use of common spaces.

This is what happened in the case addressed by the Court of Appeal of Rome with sentence no. 713/2025, which examined a dispute between neighbors born after some works carried out on a solar pavement.

In particular, the dispute concerned:

  • The transformation of a window on the balconywhich made an area first not practicable and created a new easement of view;
  • The reopening of an old mounted entrancewhich would have reactivated a easement of passage not recognized by the counterparty;
  • The alleged removal of a gutterwhich would have caused water infiltrations in the neighboring property.

At first instance, the Court of Cassino (sentence no. 136/2019) He had rejected the requests of the part that was considered damaged, believing that they had not been provided enough evidence to demonstrate the prejudice immediately. However, the Court of Appeal of Rome has partially reversed the decisionrecognizing that some building changes had actually damaged the rights of the actress and imposing the restoration of the state of the places, as well as economic compensation.

What does this sentence mean for those who carry out jobs in the home? What are the legal risks of structural changes that affect the neighboring properties?

Let’s find out by analyzing in detail the case and motivations of the decision.

Advertisement – Advertising

From the Court of Cassino to the Court of Appeal: the judicial path

The judicial affair began with a case intended at the Court of Cassino, in which the actors contested the close to the execution of some renovation works which, according to them, had violated theirs property and privacy rights.

In particular, the actress had asked for:

  • The elimination of a balcony Abusively made, as its construction had transformed a simple window into access to the sunlight, changing the state of the places and creating an unauthorized easement.
  • The closure of an entrance Previously walled, reopened after more than thirty years, which according to the actors was a easement of passage no longer existing.
  • The restoration of a gutterwhich had been removed in their opinion, causing water infiltrations into the neighboring property.

The Court of Cassinowith sentence no. 136/2019, however, had rejected the requests, believing that the actors had not produced enough evidence to demonstrate their pretensions. In particular, the first instance judge had highlighted that in the procedural file there were no photographic documents or technical appraisals that demonstrated the changes made. In addition, the witnesses listened to had not provided clear and unique elements on the pre -existing situation of the places.

For these reasons, the application had been rejected and the actors sentenced to the payment of legal fees. However, not satisfied with the decision, they have decided to appealbringing new arguments and contesting the evaluation of the evidence by the first instance judge.

Advertisement – Advertising

The decision: violation of privacy and restoration of the state of the places

The Court of Appeal of Rome, with sentence no. 713/2025partially reformed the decision of the Court of Cassino, recognizing that some building changes made by the appellant actually have injured the rights of the actress party.

One of the most relevant aspects of the sentence is the recognition of the violation of theArticle 905 of the Civil Codewhich governs the minimum distances for direct views.

Article n ° 905.
Distance for the opening of direct views and balconies

You cannot open directed views towards the bottom closed or not closed and not even above the roof of the neighbor, if between the bottom of this and the external face of the wall in which the direct views open there is no distance of one meter and half.
You cannot equally build balconies or other sporting, terraces, solar slabs and the like, with a parapet that allows you to look at the bottom of the neighbor, if there is no distance of one and a half meter between this bottom and the external line of these works.
The prohibition ceases when there is a public road between the two nearby funds.

According to the Court, the creation of a balcony instead of a simple window He created an illegitimate easementsince he allowed the appeal to appear and inspect the neighboring property, limiting the privacy and the right to reserve the appellants.

The jurisprudence on the subject has always considered that a direct view, which allows you to look without difficulty within the housing, can constitute a building abuse and must respect minimal distancesunless there is a consensus between the parties. In this case, not only was this consent present, but the modification had been made unilaterally by the appellant.

The court therefore has ordered the restoration of the state of the placesby imposing the removal of the balcony and the restoration of the original window.

Advertisement – Advertising

The question of the entrance reopened, the gutter and the damage suffered

Another point treated by the sentence concerns the reopening of an old walled entrancewhich according to the appellants was one easement of extinct passage For not twenty years of use. However, the court has rejected this requestconsidering that sufficient proof had not been provided To demonstrate that the entrance had remained closed for an uninterrupted period over twenty years.

There testimony of some people Listened during the trial showed that access had been walled in the 90s and reopened in 2005, a time interval of about 15 years, then lower than the prescription threshold provided for by the law for the extinction of a servitude for unused.

In the absence of certain documentary tests that attest to a closing more than twenty years, the Court confirmed the legitimacy of the reopening of the entrance.

As for the alleged removal of the gutterthe Court has again given the appellant reason, stating that No certain evidence had been presented To show that it was he who removed the element. The appellants claimed that the removal had caused water infiltrations In their properties, but no technical reports or photographs that certified the state of the gutter before and after the works have been produced.

Also, the Testimonies collected were not univocalmaking it impossible for the Court to attribute with certainty the responsibility for removing the appeal. In the absence of a clear proof, the recovery application was therefore rejected.

A fundamental aspect of the sentence was finally the recognition of the damage suffered by the appellants due to the violation of their privacy and the Loss of natural light. The Court referred to the jurisprudence of the Cassation (sentence no. 22835/2024), according to which the injury of the property right, deriving from an unauthorized easement, is automatically productive of damage.

This principle, known as damage in re ipsaestablishes that, in situations of violation of a real right, the damage is presumed and does not require specific test. Based on this approach, the Court has compensation in 5,000 euros quantifiedconsidering both the loss of privacy caused by the new balcony, and the reduction of light and air consequent to the modification of the property.

This decision reiterates the importance of respect the legal distances and regulations on easements when they carry out building works. The sentence confirms that Structural changes cannot harm the rights of othersespecially if they concern the privacy and confidentiality of neighboring homes.