Legal issue
With ruling no. 6469/2025, the Supreme Court of Cassation held that an “omissive” Town Planning Certificate (CDU) is essentially ineffective as a basis for the legitimate expectation of private individuals and professional operators.
In the case at hand, the CDU failed to indicate the existence of a hydrogeological building constraint affecting the appellant’s land, thereby undermining its reliance on the possibility of constructing on the plot.
Case
The appellant had purchased a plot of land believing it to be buildable, due to the Municipality of Ghedi’s failure to indicate, in the Town Planning Certificate (“CDU”), a building restriction arising from the Hydrogeological Structure Plan (“PAI”), which had already been incorporated into the adopted Town Planning Scheme (“PGT”).
The Court of Brescia initially ordered the Municipality to compensate the appellant for over € 230,000. However, the Brescia Court of Appeal overturned the ruling, holding that the effectiveness of the PGT (once approved and published) was erga omnes and therefore presumed to be known by anyone.
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation
The original appellant appealed the appellate ruling on two grounds:
- he disputed that the PGT had erga omnes effect, arguing that it had not been published in the Regional Bullettin (BUR);
- he also argued that the CDU was misleading and that there was a causal link between the Municipality’s conduct and the damage suffered.
Both grounds were declared inadmissibile:
- the PGT was deemed to have been duly approved and published, with erga omnes effect;
- the appellant failed to demonstrate with sufficient precision that publication was lacking or that the CDU explicitly attested to the land’s buildability;
- moreover, according to the court, the area was already subject to restrictions under the PAI, which also had erga omnes effect.
Conditional cross-appeal filed by ITAS MUTUA
ITAS MUTUA had challenged the validity of the insurance coverage and complained about the failure to evaluate some contractual clauses, but the appeal was absorbed, the main one having been rejected.
Outcome
- Main appeal: indmissible
- Cross appeal: absorbed
- The appellant was ordered to pay the court costs in favor of both the Municipality of Ghedi and ITAS MUTUA.
Commentary
This ruling provides a significant opportunity to reflect on the centrality of town planning due diligence in real estate transactions, particularly when the buildability of the property is at stake.
Click here to download the document.