generally permitted. The main constraint on the installation of a lift or similar structure is not so much compliance with statutory distance requirements as compliance with Article 1102 of the Civil Code, which prohibits altering the intended use of common property and preventing other residents from using it. In this context, the principle of condominium solidarity prevails. Case law tends to prioritise the needs of disabled people, holding that their fundamental right to health (Article 32 of the Constitution) and to the full usability of their home takes precedence over any inconvenience or reduction in enjoyment (such as a slight reduction in light or air) for other co-owners, provided that the common area is not rendered unusable. 2. Works between separate private properties (not part of a block of flats): where work to remove architectural barriers is carried out on a private property that borders another private property, without there being any shared space or area, the conclusion is clear: no exemption applies. Therefore, the construction of an external lift on private land, installed at a distance less than that stipulated by building regulations or within three metres of a boundary or a neighbour’s view, is to be considered unlawful, as it cannot benefit from the regulations on the removal of architectural barriers. CONCLUSIONS Judgment No. 11930/2025 of the Court of Cassation has established a clear line of interpretation, limiting the scope of the exemption regarding distances to the perimeter of the block of flats alone. Although this interpretation may appear debatable – in that it could render the second paragraph of Article 3 practically meaningless – it provides a clear criterion for practitioners. During the design phase, it will be essential to verify in advance not only technical feasibility but also the exact nature of the boundary area: only the presence of joint ownership or a common area opens the door to exemptions. In all other cases, compliance with the Civil Code and local regulations remains the best course of action to avoid costly litigation and removal orders. * Lawyers at Berliri Nucci Veroni Law Firm the need to install, for example, a lift may conflict with the regulations on distances between parts of the building itself or between the building and the communal areas. The legislation therefore aims to balance conflicting interests within a co-ownership. The derogation is not, however, intended to sacrifice the property rights of third parties who are not part of the apartment building context affected by the works. The Court justifies the conclusion it has reached, in addition to the aforementioned reasons, from a systematic perspective as well, stating that the first paragraph of Article 3 refers to the ‘works referred to in Article 2’, which would be only those to be carried out within the apartment building complex. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The established position of the Court of Cassation outlines two clearly distinct scenarios, with significant practical consequences for professionals and operators in the sector: 1. Works in the context of block of apartments: an exemption from the rules on distances (both those set out in building regulations and, under certain conditions, those of the Civil Code) is 69
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDUyNTU=