1) Council of State: on the SCIA by way of regularization and the municipality’s silence — an express favourable measure is not required to regularise unauthorised works

By judgment No. 6947/2026, published on 18 September 2026, the Council of State clarified that a SCIA, including one filed by way of regularisation, does not require the adoption of an express municipal measure in order to take effect: the building works notified become lawful solely upon expiry of the statutory time-limit without objection on the part of the administration.

In particular, the Council of State held that the SCIA covers liberalized building works, for which a prior notice filed with the administration is sufficient. Accordingly, no express act is required for the lawfulness of the works declared: the expiry of the time-limit without the municipality exercising its powers to prohibit the works perfects the authorising effect.

To access the decision, click here.

2) Council of State: on prejudice to the view — for the interest in bringing proceedings to arise, the owner must prove a concrete prejudice

By judgment No. 6861/2026, published on 11 September 2026, the Council of State returned to the issue of prejudice to the view as a basis for the interest in bringing proceedings against a building permit.

Specifically, the Council of State, drawing on the approach taken by the Adunanza Plenaria in decision No. 22/2021 and thereby adhering to the more restrictive line of case-law, reaffirmed that mere vicinitas is not sufficient to demonstrate the interest in bringing proceedings, it being necessary to plead a specific prejudice arising from the contested works.

With regard to the specific issue of prejudice to the view resulting from the structure authorised by the contested building permit, as a basis for the neighbour’s interest in bringing proceedings, the Council of State clarified that: (i) the scenic character of a place is a factual situation that can be protected only by means of a servitus altius non tollendi (an easement restricting building height), the existence of which must be proved; (ii) the right to a view is not founded on the mere pre-existence of the view relative to the contested works; (iii) impairment of a scenic view may give rise to the interest in bringing proceedings, but only where the prejudice can be said to be serious and effective, in the sense that the view must be characterised by evident, distinctive and qualified features of merit; and (iv) a generic allegation of loss of light, air and privacy resulting from the greater volumetric bulk on the neighbouring land is not sufficient to give rise to such an interest, in the absence of proof of an actual deterioration of the conditions of ventilation and light, or of other specific detrimental factors, such as a reduction in the value of the property.

To access the decision, click here.