Rome, May 29 – The Court of Appeal in Rome has ordered a new expert report to investigate the causes of the spectacular building collapse that occurred on Lungotevere Flaminio, 70, in January 2016. This decision comes ten years after the incident, highlighting persistent doubts regarding the initial conclusions that led to three convictions in the first instance.
New Expert Team to Be Appointed on June 18
The appointment of a new team of experts is scheduled for June 18. This team will be tasked with clarifying whether the collapse was due to human error-which could still be prosecuted, subject to statutes of limitations-or structural deficiencies, pointing to historical faults since the building dates back to the fascist era of 1936.
The experts are expected to submit their findings in the autumn, after the summer period. Three defendants remain in the case. The main suspect at the time, Rigo De Righi, the tenant who carried out the controversial renovation, was acquitted up to the Court of Cassation, as he was unaware of the problematic modernizations carried out by his technicians.
However, the self-proclaimed architect Massimo Canepa (who never graduated), Pasquale Famà, the owner of the company that carried out the work, and Roberto Mattei, the surveyor and project designer, had received sentences ranging from two to one year in prison for negligent collapse.
Initial Verdict: Demolition of Partitions as Primary Cause
In the first instance, it was believed that the expert report commissioned by the Public Prosecutor’s Office had fully identified the reasons for the building’s collapse. While acknowledging the vulnerability of a building constructed with poor concrete-a material often used to reinforce other structures in pre-war Mussolini’s Italy-the consultant concluded that the real reason for the collapse was the imprudent removal of some partitions to create De Righi’s open-plan living room. This technical solution was deemed even riskier due to the existing structural deficits of a building already tested by previous works over time.
“Such aspects of fragility,” wrote Judge Maria Rubera in her reasoning, “are not denied, in fact, they were clearly highlighted by the technical consultants of the public prosecutor, but they believed that the triggering cause that initiated the immediate collapse… was the demolition of the partitions. And it is not convincing that the collapse would have occurred regardless of the partitions, which, in his opinion, would have had no interference on the resistance of the pillars.”
Compensation for Residents Remains Uncertain
These certainties are now being questioned. The renovation work, carried out with what the Public Prosecutor’s Office described as sloppiness, had rendered the entire building unstable. The mix of structural and non-structural reasons has prompted caution from the judges of the Court of Appeal, leading to the decision for a new expert report. This has intensified the doubts of the residents, who narrowly escaped with their lives during a dramatic night thanks to the heroism of two firefighters, Giulio Capuano and Paolo Cucinelli, during an urgent evacuation. The question of compensation remains stalled, leaving residents wondering if anyone will truly be held accountable for the collapse.
Background of the Collapse
The building, located in a residential area of Rome, collapsed suddenly in the early hours of January 2016, causing significant damage but miraculously no fatalities, largely due to the timely evacuation of residents. The incident raised immediate concerns about building safety standards and the oversight of renovation projects in historical structures.
The initial investigation focused on the renovation work undertaken in one of the apartments, particularly the removal of internal partitions. Prosecutors argued that these alterations compromised the structural integrity of the aging building, which was already considered vulnerable due to its construction materials and age.
The defense, however, contended that the building’s inherent weaknesses and the quality of materials used during its original construction in 1936 were the primary factors, suggesting that the collapse might have occurred regardless of the recent renovations.
Wider Implications for Building Safety in Rome
This case has broader implications for building safety and renovation practices in Rome, a city with numerous historic structures. The outcome of the new expert report could set precedents for how responsibility is assigned in similar incidents, particularly concerning the balance between the age and original construction quality of buildings versus the impact of subsequent modifications.
City authorities have been under pressure to review and update regulations concerning building inspections and renovation permits, especially for older properties. The Flaminio collapse serves as a stark reminder of the potential dangers posed by inadequate structural assessments and unsupervised construction work in densely populated urban areas.
The families affected by the collapse have been in a protracted legal battle for compensation and accountability. The new expert report offers a renewed hope for clarity and a definitive resolution to the complex question of culpability, which has remained a point of contention for nearly a decade.
The upcoming proceedings and the findings of the new expert team will be closely watched by legal experts, urban planners, and residents alike, as they could influence future policies on urban development and preservation in Rome.
Source: https://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/26_maggio_29/crollo-della-palazzina-al-flaminio-nuova-perizia-in-appello-per-decidere-se-fu-colpa-dei-materiali-poveri-usati-nel-1936-50fff448-e270-4b87-a895-8092c7cacxlk.shtml
