The Court of Cassation puts an end (at least for the moment) to the dispute between the owners of a Piedmontese slot hall and the condominium that would like it closed.
With an order dated January 2024, the Second Civil Section annulled the sentence of the Court of Appeal of Turin which had rejected the challenge brought by the owners of a slot hall against the sentence of the Court of Vercelli, which had rejected the appeal pursuant to art. 1137 cc of the assembly resolution of the XXX Condominium and had, instead, accepted the counterclaim of the defendant condominium aimed at stopping the games room activity carried out by XXX, owner of the real estate unit owned by the XXXX company, since it was in conflict with the art. 1 of the regulation
condominium. This regulatory provision states: "The building is intended for residential accommodation and offices, shops, as well as professional offices". The resolution of 21 May 2012 had in
particularly decided: "The condominium owners, unanimously, excluding XXX (against), resolve their firm opposition to the activities of games rooms, restaurants and/or public places with the administration of
drinks or food or in any case with evening opening, i.e. after 20,00 pm, regardless of whether the opening is for everyone or for members and/or members, they are
placed in your condominium, as this would constitute a violation of the art. 1 of the Condominium Regulations...".
The thema decidendum concerned the scope of this resolution: for the plaintiff co-owner it had entailed a modification, not adopted unanimously, of article 1 of the regulation, having
added a further limitation on the destination of the real estate units; for the Condominium, however, a clarification, and not a modification, of the regulatory provision was thus approved, as a "game room" activity certainly could not be included in the typology of "shops" that the art. 1 of the regulation allowed.
For the Court, the resolution approved by a majority of the assembly of 21 May 2012, which dictated, this time specifically, the prohibition on using the real estate units for "game room, restaurant and/or public premises activities with the supply of drinks or food or in any case with evening opening...", did not have an interpretative value of the previous art. 1 of the regulation, since in reality it modified the textual content of that previous regulation, dictating a new binding precept, with which the permitted use of "shops" knew the explicit exclusion of some specific commercial activities.
Therefore, the principle must operate according to which the modification of a clause of the regulation, which limits the rights of condominiums on exclusive or common properties, is valid only if approved with the unanimous negotiating consent of the participants in the community, which must be expressed in form written, in compliance with the art. 1350 n. 4 cc
