With its recent ruling no. 422 of June 3, 2025, the Administrative Justice Council for the Region of Sicily (CGARS) held that the demolition of a building located on a one plot of land and its subsequent reconstruction on a different plot of land falls within the definition of “building refurbishment” pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, letter d) of Legislative Decree no. 380/2001, as amended by the Simplification Decree (Decree Law no. 76/2020, converted into Law no. 120/2020). Following the amendments, the provision expressly provides for the possibility of reconstruction on a different site.
The ruling also provides some important clarifications on the concept of “building refurbishment” and useful guidance from related case law:
- Overcoming the traditional concept: the previous case law guidelines – developed in relation to a very different definition of building refurbishment – held that demolition followed by reconstruction could only qualify as refurbishment if there was a certain continuity between the new structure and the one that had been demolished. These guidelines are now considered outdated.
- Extension of the concept of building refurbishment: Following the amendments to Article 3, paragraph 1, letter d) of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001, the definition of building refurbishment has been significantly broadened to include the demolition and reconstruction of existing buildings “with different shapes, façades, footprints, and planimetric and volumetric characteristics, incorporating the necessary changes to comply with seismic safety regulations, accessibility standards, the installation of technological systems, and improvements in energy efficiency”. The legislator’s objective – as reflected in the preparatory works of the conversion law – is to allow “urban regeneration” and thus avoid the consumption of new land, including through the reuse of already urbanized areas.
- Distinction between building refurbishment and new construction: according to the literal wording of the law, the key distinction between the two types of intervention is no longer strict continuity with the existing building, but rather the pre-existence of a structure in the case of refurbishment. New construction is therefore considered a residual category that includes interventions that do not fall under other classifications and that may be carried out independently, without the need for pre-existing structures to demolish.
The ruling sets an important precedent that could provide greater flexibility for professionals to carry out urban regeneration projects and the redevelopment of existing buildings stock.
For a more in-depth analysis, the full ruling is available here.
SI – Studio Inzaghi is available for any clarification.