Source: www.ediltecnico.it
After the 2012 ruling – which had established that, even if the request to install a lift in a condominium does not reach the majority established by Law 13/1989 (Provisions to encourage the overcoming and elimination of architectural barriers in private buildings), the right to build a lift in buildings inhabited or frequented by disabled people must be safeguarded with mobility difficulties – another important ruling of the Court of Cassation is added to the jurisprudence of the condominium and the removal of architectural barriers.
Elimination of architectural barriers and historical constraints
Judgment 9101/2018
With a new ruling (9101/2018), the Court of Cassation has established that the need to install a lift in a condominium, thus eliminating architectural barriers, must prevail over any historical constraints to which the building is subjected.
In fact, the judges reiterated that Law 13/1989 constitutes the expression of a principle of social solidarity, and also aims to promote accessibility to buildings in the general interest. There is also a principle of condominium solidarity, which safeguards the need of the disabled to eliminate architectural barriers.
In the case under consideration, the judges assessed that the use of the elevator was essential for the disabled person to be able to access his home. If the installation of the lift does not compromise either the stability or the architectural decorum of the building, the works cannot therefore be blocked.
Read also Elevator in condominium, co-ownership and installation costs
All this always in compliance with the limits provided for by Article 1102 of the Civil Code, which regulates the use of the common property.
Elevator installation without majority
Judgment 18334/2012
The judges of the Supreme Court also established that where in a condominium there is a need to eliminate architectural barriers, the request to install a lift that can be used by the disabled can be formulated both for the benefit of those directly concerned or their family members who live or lead a housing unit as tenants, but also in favor of guests of the condominium with mobility difficulties who do not usually reside in the building.
In these situations, the ermines write in the ruling, the responsibility cannot fall solely on the individual and his or her close family circle, but must be taken into serious consideration by the entire condominium community which must still facilitate access to the common areas of the building for disabled people.
The Supreme Court also considers that non-existent reasons such as the aesthetic and architectural disfigurement of the building cannot be used as justification for the failure to build the lifts (Source Administering Real Estate no. 170/2013).
