The provision with which a certificate of viability is devoid of effectiveness must be typical, based on a technical investigation and, in the absence of this, must in any case guarantee protection to the juridical position of individuals.
This is what Section VIII of the Naples TAR states with sentence no. 7110 of 11 December 2018. This ruling upheld the appeal lodged by the owner of a mixed residential and commercial complex with the aim of obtaining the annulment of the municipal revocation order - as a precautionary measure - of two certificates of practicability . The Court upheld the appeal after having considered two of the grounds of appeal proposed by the claimant to be worthy of note: (i) breach of the principle of typicality of administrative acts and (ii) failure to state reasons for the revocation order .
The facts.In February 2018 the applicant had been notified of a "precautionary revocation" of two certificates of practicability respectively issued in 2011 and 2012. The revocation was motivated by the competent municipal office because of the need to safeguard public and private safety. In particular, the precautionary revocation provision was based on (i) an office technical advice rendered in the context of a criminal proceeding pending against the property and (ii) some reports of danger from which the verifications conducted by the office had arisen. antiabusivismo. Consequently, the property decided to challenge the aforementioned municipal decree of revocation, asking the administrative judge to annul the same by complaining, among other things,
The pronunciation . The TAR upheld the appeal, sharing the party's complaint that the disputed measure does not respond to any of the legal schemes through which the administrative power can legitimately manifest itself. The atypical nature of the administrative act in question appears evident from the same nomen iuris indicated by the defendant Administration: "decree of precautionary revocation". This expression seems to express a crasis of two different types of administrative act:
- the revocation, governed by art. 21-quinquies of the l. 241/1990 (according to which "For reasons of public interest occurred or in the event of a change in the factual situation that can not be foreseen at the time the measure was adopted or, except for the provisions for authorization or attribution of economic advantages, a new assessment of the original public interest, the long-term administrative provision may be revoked by the body that issued it or by another body prescribed by law.The revocation determines the unsuitability of the revoked measure to produce further effects.If the revocation involves prejudices to the detriment of the subjects directly concerned, the administration has the obligation to provide for their compensation ");
- the precautionary measures, regulated by art. 21-quater of the aforementioned law (the second paragraph of which states that "The effectiveness or enforcement of the administrative provision may be suspended, for serious reasons and for the time strictly necessary, by the same body that issued it or by other The deadline of the suspension is explicitly indicated in the deed which is available to it and may be extended or deferred only once, and reduced due to unexpected requirements.The suspension can not however be arranged or continues beyond the deadlines for exercise of the power of cancellation referred to in Article 21-nonies. "). According to the Regional Administrative Court, the Municipality not only did not use a typical instrument prepared by law to deal with an imminent danger situation, but it also omitted to give an end to the precautionary revocation of the two certificates of practicability, thus making definitive the effects of this revocation. The lack of fixation of a term for precautionary measures by the Administration has already been censured in the courts because of the need to safeguard the certainty of the legal position of private individuals against whom the precautionary measure would have a sine die effect (in in this sense see: TAR Campania, Naples, Section III, September 15, 2011, No. 4443, TAR Lazio, Rome, Section Ic, August 31, 2018, No. 9106).
In secondo luogo, oltre alla questione dell’atipicità dell’atto adottato dal Comune, il TAR ha ritenuto degna di nota la censura che attiene la carenza di istruttoria, così come esplicata dalla proprietà ricorrente nei primi due motivi del ricorso. La revoca dei due certificati di agibilità, infatti, ha avuto luogo senza che l’Amministrazione comunale abbia incaricato i propri tecnici per l’espletamento delle necessarie verifiche inerenti la condizione degli immobili. La lettura della consulenza tecnica resa nel contesto del procedimento penale pendente nei confronti della proprietà induceva a ravvisare un pericolo meramente presunto e, pertanto, il Comune ha revocato i certificati in assenza di un pericolo attuale per la pubblica incolumità correttamente documentato. Alla luce delle considerazioni appena riassunte, il Tribunale ha accolto il ricorso ed annullato l’atto impugnato.
La dichiarazione di inagibilità. Un cenno speciale merita il profilo della tipicità del provvedimento: nel caso esaminato dalla sentenza in commento, infatti, il Comune ha emanato un “decreto di revoca” (precauzionale), ma occorre ricordare che l’articolo 26 del Testo Unico dell’Edilizia prevede un potere specifico in capo all’Amministrazione Comunale, la “dichiarazione di inagibilità”: secondo detta norma (nella formulazione previgente la novella del 2016): “il rilascio del certificato di agibilità non impedisce l’esercizio del potere di dichiarazione di inagibilità di un edificio o di parte di esso ai sensi dell’articolo 222 del regio decreto 27 luglio 1934, n. 1265”. In altri termini, il legislatore ha chiaramente codificato il potere per il Comune di rappresentare le condizioni di non conformità di un dato immobile rispetto agli standards di abitabilità richiesti dalla normativa e, quindi, pur in presenza di un certificato di agibilità, di emettere una apposita dichiarazione di inagibilità.
The current legislation. For the sake of completeness, it is specified that the sentence in question analyzes facts that occurred before the entry into force of the 2016 version (Legislative Decree No. 222 of 25 November 2016) which replaced the "certificate of viability" with the certified accountability report ". Today, therefore, the presence of the conditions of safety, hygiene, healthiness, energy saving of the buildings and of the systems installed in them are attested through, in fact, certified reporting. Even as a result of the news, the power to declare unavailability remains unresolved: Article 26 of the Construction Consolidation Act establishes, in fact, that the presentation of the certified acceptability report does not prevent the exercise of the power to declare the unavailability of a building or part of it.