Mr. G. owns land on which he made an illegal property.
For that reason he was taken to a penal trial, during which the judge has ordered the seizure of the article.
At the same time, the City issued the order for suspension of work, followed by the order for demolition of illegal work, to be performed within ninety days.
That order, however, was not carried out by Mr. G., who believed that it could not intervene on the property subject to seizure because criminal.
period ran so the ninety-day time limit set in the order for demolition unless the offender to proceed to the demolition of illegal works.
Subsequently, there was the decision of the criminal court, declaring the offense settled for prescribing and ordering, therefore, the release from seizure of illegal artifact and its return to the municipal entity.
Mr. G. asked if, since the crime extinct, had not he entitled to a refund of the property.
In this regard we need to analyze the rules contained in art. Law No 7 of 28.2.1985 47, and now art. Presidential Decree No 31 of 6.6.2001 380 (Unique text for construction).
The rule provides that the Authority Hall, discovered the abuse of buildings, enjoining the owner and responsible for the abuse to the demolition of the property abusively.
If the manager does not secure the demolition dall'ingiunzione within ninety days, the property is acquired for free at the right of municipal assets.
In the case of Mr. G., not having complied with such order of demolition, there has been automatically acquire the property in favor of the City.
The criminal court, therefore, has properly ordered the return of the property to the City rather than the accused.
should be noted in this regard that the of the non-formal notification of the investigation, after the expiry of ninety days, as provided by art. Presidential Decree No 31 of 6.6.2001 380, is only required to have entry into the City and transcription in the land register.
In other words, the absence of such notification and the subsequent transcription does not prevent the acquisition of the assets (and the area of \u200b\u200bthe abutments) to the municipal assets, such as scalers effect occurs "by operation of law", ie automatically as a result of the time limit fixed in the order.
Nor can one say that the demolition orders could not be performed because the property was impounded criminal, so its possible tampering was indeed the offense under Article. 349 Criminal Code (violation of the seals).
The Court, in fact, believes that, in the presence of a seizure criminal misuse of the article, the manager, taking the demolition work under City Ordinance, may well apply to the court proceeding for permission to access a site bound for the demolition itself.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude on this, although the offense prescribed, you are not entitled to restitution of the property because it was awarded automatically to the City as a result of the non- demolition order within ninety days.
0 comments:
Post a Comment