ATA/52/1996•Demolition order for illegal spiral staircase upheld
ATA/52/1996Tribunal de Justiça / Câmara Administrativa30 de jan. de 1996Dismissed
Extraído pela Omnilex
The appellant challenged a demolition order concerning a spiral staircase built without authorization. The staircase had unsafe, too-small steps, and the appellant had not attempted to find a compromise. The court held that demolition was proportionate in light of the illegality and danger. It also rejected reliance on good faith because the construction permit application did not clearly identify the parts to be built in red on the plans as required.
RALCI.52; demolition order for unlawful and dangerous construction; proportionality and good faith. The demolition of an illegally erected structure is compatible with proportionality where the work presents a safety risk and the person concerned has not sought any reasonable compromise. The principle of good faith does not protect an applicant who submits a building-permit request without complying with the mandatory plan-marking requirements, in particular where the intended works are not indicated in red as prescribed. A defective application cannot create a legitimate expectation precluding demolition (consid. unspecified).
Descripteurs
CONSTRUCTION ET INSTALLATION; ESCALIER; AUTORISATION DEROGATOIRE(EN GENERAL); PERMIS D'HABITER; ORDRE DE DEMOLITION; PRINCIPE DE LA BONNE FOI; PROPORTIONNALITE; TPE
Normes
RALCI.52
Résumé
Ne viole pas le principe de la proportionnalité l'ordre de démolition d'un escalier en colimaçon construit illégalement et comportant un danger (marches trop petites), l'intéressé n'ayant de surcroît recherché aucun compromis; le recourant, qui avait requis l'autorisation de construire sans indiquer en rouge (art. 10 b let. H RALCI) sur les plans les parties à construire, ne peut invoquer le principe de la bonne foi pour s'opposer à l'ordre de démolition.
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether the demolition order for the illegally built spiral staircase was disproportionate
The demolition order was not disproportionate because the staircase was illegally built and posed a danger, and the appellant had not sought any compromise.
Given the unlawful construction and safety risk, removal was justified; the appellant's failure to pursue an agreement weighed against any lesser measure.
Whether the appellant could rely on the principle of good faith to oppose demolition because the building application did not mark the planned parts in red
No. The appellant could not invoke good faith to resist the demolition order because the application was not properly prepared in accordance with the required plan-marking rules.
A party cannot rely on good faith where the authorization request omitted the required red marking of the parts to be built.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.