Condominium apartment works, danger of damage
The Supreme Court, called to outline the damage concept indicated by the art. 1122 (original formulation), has specified on several occasions that there is no doubt that the concept of damage, to which the law refers, should not be limited exclusively to material damageunderstood as a modification of the external conformation or intrinsic nature of the common thing, but also those that eliminate or appreciably reduce the utilities that can be drawn from the common thing, even if of a hedonistic or aesthetic natureprovided that the thing appears, due to its objective way of being, intended for such utilities, according to common social appreciation, which can also be evaluated in reference to the economic value of the thing.
Communication to the administrator
The same rule, in fact, it would seem “impose” those who carry out works on private property – even those that do not go beyond the limits set out in art. 1122 of the civil code – to notify the condominium administratorwho, in turn, will be required to report it immediately to the assembly. Given the condominium owner's duty to give prior notice to the administrator, it is not foreseenHowever, no authorization or approval from the assembly bodybeing, on the other hand, works carried out on exclusive parts (by ownership or right of use).
This is, therefore, a provision aimed at establishing a procedural process that can allow the assembly to evaluate the situation and take appropriate measures and, therefore, to react if the limits set out in art. 1122 of the civil code are violated; in any case, the condominium owner who intends to proceed with the renovation of his property is required to notify the administrator, so that the latter can inform everyone else; the condominium owner could appropriately ask the administrator for the possibility of posting (before the start of the works) in the atrium of the building a sign with which they can be given to the condominium community (in advance) the necessary information (apartment extension number and details of the client condominium owner, start and end date of the works; details of the company responsible for the works; useful telephone numbers for any communications).
The time slots for works in condominiums
Normally moles Municipal regulations (which vary from city to city), to protect noise pollution and in order to guarantee the containment of disturbance and safeguard the peace and rest of people, work in the apartmentseven when they fall within the legal limits, they can only be carried out in certain time slots (for each violation you can therefore ask forintervention of the local policewhich has the power to impose an administrative fine).
However, those are more effective provisions of a contractual nature of the regulation which impose silence in a specific time slot. Please note that failure to comply with the above-mentioned time slots may result in a cancellation regulatory sanction ex article 70 dis. att. cc
Internal works and prohibitions of the regulation
In the absence of specific prohibitions contained in the regulation contractually, the limit on ownership is therefore regulated in the provisions relating to condominiums, with the consequence that any decision taken by the condominiums' assembly that imposes prohibitions on the individual condominium in the execution of works to be carried out in the exclusive property will be considered illegitimate and not validly assumed.
The provision of the art. 1122 cc, however, is a dispositive and derogable rule, so that the major limitations imposed by the condominium regulations are considered valid as long as they are not affected by radical nullity. As a clause in the condominium regulation could prohibit internal modifications to individual properties or condition them to written approvalrespectively, of a technician appointed by the condominium assembly or the administrator of condominium.
Please note, however, that the prohibitions and limits on the use of condominiums on property units in exclusive ownership must be incontrovertibly revealing expressions of a clear and explicit intent, not susceptible to giving rise to uncertainties (Cass. Civ., section II, 20/10/2016, n. 21307).
