Premio Guicciardi 2025: The New Simplified Building Regularisation Between Construction and Landscape

In the contribution with which I won the 13th edition of the “Enrico Guicciardi” Prize, I addressed one of the most delicate interpretative issues introduced by the so-called “Save Home” Decree: the relationship between the new regime for the verification of conformity under Article 36-bis of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001 and the landscape protection framework set out in the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape.

This is a topic that sits in a border area traditionally marked by systemic tensions, where the 2024 legislative intervention has had a significant impact without, however, providing express coordination with the pre-existing framework.

Award Ceremony Video

The award ceremony video is published with rights reserved in favour of the Associazione Veneta degli Avvocati Amministrativisti.

© Associazione Veneta degli Avvocati Amministrativisti – https://www.amministrativistiveneti.it

The Subject of the Contribution

In the prize-winning work I focused, in particular, on paragraph four of Article 36-bis, a provision that allows the landscape compatibility assessment procedure to be activated even in the case of works that have resulted in the creation or increase of surfaces and volumes, also providing for the formation of tacit consent where the competent Authority fails to issue a decision within the statutory time limits.

I compared this provision with Article 167 of the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, which continues to rule out absolutely the possibility of ascertaining landscape compatibility where there are volumetric increases. This comparison reveals a clear regulatory antinomy, which does not exhaust itself in a theoretical divergence but has a direct impact on administrative action.

The Approach Adopted

The analysis did not merely highlight the conflict between the two provisions but adopted a systematic approach aimed at reconstructing the overall framework through the traditional criteria for resolving legislative antinomies.

From this perspective, I examined the limits of the hierarchical and competence criteria, the ambiguities of the speciality criterion, and the central — but not conclusive — role of the chronological criterion, also in light of the express repeal clause contained in the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape and the doctrinal and case-law debate that has developed on the subject of so-called “resistance clauses.”

The aim was not to offer a single solution, but rather to highlight the complexity of the problem and the limits of interpretative reconstructions based on a single criterion.

Practical Implications

A central part of the contribution was devoted to the practical consequences of the regime introduced by the “Save Home” Decree. I analysed, in particular, the practical difficulties facing local authorities, which are called upon to handle proceedings in which provisions that are difficult to reconcile with one another coexist.

I thus reconstructed the main scenarios that may arise in building regularisation proceedings — from the express opinion of the landscape authority, to the formation of tacit consent, right up to the hypothesis of a declaration of inadmissibility of the application — highlighting the particularly exposed position of public offices and the resulting risk of litigation.

Concluding Remarks

In the contribution with which I won the “Enrico Guicciardi” Prize 2025, I sought to offer a critical reading of a reform that, while moving towards greater flexibility, leaves significant questions of coordination between building regulation and landscape protection unresolved.

Pending definitive clarification from the courts — and, if necessary, from the Constitutional Court — the subject remains highly topical and of considerable practical relevance, especially for local authorities and for legal professionals called upon to operate within a regulatory framework that is still unsettled.

Note: This article is merely illustrative of the prize-winning contribution and does not constitute a reproduction thereof.