< INDEX 

An Italian Condominium War with Everyone Against One! 

Presentation 

On November 6, 2024, I sent an email to the administrator of the super condominium Comparto PEEP 7.3, L.F., informing him that I had knowed that, to increase the condominium owners' parking spaces, they were studying a solution that would involve creating two parking spaces in front of the driveway leading to my garage. Therefore, to avoid what happened in 2009, when an Ai Faggi condominium owner illegally marked a parking space that in some cases prevented me from adequately exiting the garage, I expressed my concerns and asked to speak with him. On November 14, 2024, he responded with, "Okay, we'll see together."
But then not only did we never see anything together, but on May 26, 2025, in the minutes of the April 9, 2025 meeting, he presented a SOLUTION that, to expand the parking spaces for all the condominium owners, provides for two new spaces in front of the driveway of my garage and also to move a parking space in front of its entrance, as shown by the three rectangles drawn under BLOCK C of the SOLUTION plan. And so he raised expectations on the part of the condominium owners, because they believe that a proposal presented by the administrator is fair and feasible. While I believe it is an attempt on their part to rob me of my right to easy access to my garage, in order to expand their parking spaces free of charge. Thus began "a condominium war with all against one."
Instead, as confirmed to me by a lawyer and an accountant, to implement the  SOLUTION, a modification to the contractual condominium regulations is required, which requires the unanimous vote of the condominium owners, including my vote, which, of course, I would never give. Therefore, the SOLUTION is not feasible. In fact, it is precisely to prevent such cases that the law requires unanimity.
So I wondered why the administrator submitted the proposal, thus deceiving the condominium owners, at least in my opinion, and thus sparking a condominium war.
So on July 10, 2025, I sent him an email with the following question:
“In order to increase the condominium parking spaces, you proposed creating two parking spaces right in front of the driveway leading to my garage and moving another in front of your entrance, as shown by the three rectangles drawn under BLOCK C of the attached SOLUTION.
But given that this requires absolute unanimity, including my consent, which you obviously can't expect to obtain, how do you think it's possible to implement it?”
On July 11, 2025, the administrator sent me an email, but instead of answering my question, he asked for privacy (I had initially published the names in this article), and he wrote:
"Good morning, Mr. Bruniera, please note that the publication of names, surnames, and sensitive data may violate your right to privacy. I am therefore informing you of any necessary action against you, and I hereby warn you against violating these rights in any way."
And I answered him, among other things:
After 27 years of peaceful condominium life, your proposal about parking spaces has sparked a condominium war that will last forever. But you're not concerned about the war, but about privacy! 

On July 15, 2025, the administrator responded to me, saying, among other things:
“I also warn you against spreading and supporting false information such as 'that I am the one making the proposals.' Nothing could be more wrong.”
That same day, I replied to him, saying, among other things:
Regarding your assertion that you're not the one making the proposals, in my opinion, if you praise all the work done by the author and thank him ("So, with all these premises, a job has been done for which we thank the Councilors who took an interest, especially Mr. B. who also supported the entire work with repeated sketches, solutions, and proposals to reflect on: ...") and then present your findings, it means you're adopting the findings and, therefore, the proposal.
However, I believe I can at least say that you submitted the proposal and therefore believe it can be implemented, legally of course.
Therefore, I'm amending the question as follows:
In order to increase the number of parking spaces for condominium owners, you have submitted the proposal to create two parking spaces directly in front of the driveway leading to my garage and to move another in front of your entrance, as shown by the three rectangles drawn under BLOCK C of the attached SOLUTION.
But given that it requires absolute unanimity of consensus, including mine, which of course he can't expect to obtain, how do you think it's possible to achieve it?"
In essence, the administrator, rather than answering my question, challenged me on privacy (which is why, after researching, I replaced the names with their initials) and stated that he wasn't the one who made the proposal (but rather presented it). Therefore, at least until he provides a specific response, I have to assume he thinks the SOLUTION is feasible even without unanimity, because if he presented it knowing I would vote against it, it means he felt unanimity wasn't necessary. 

The original plan of the first deed of sale was attached to the minutes of the April 9, 2025 meeting. It was presented as the starting point for redistributing the parking spaces. I attempted to challenge it both at the meeting and in subsequent emails. However, as I will demonstrate later, this is a false issue. What matters is the possibility of realizing the redistribution without unanimity, something the lawyer and accountant I consulted ruled out, but which the administrator implicitly supports.
In conclusion, since a unanimous resolution is unachievable, as I would vote against it, if a resolution were to be passed without unanimity, I would have to challenge it to have it annulled, thus undermining the condominium owners' expectations and turning them against me, thus escalating the condominium war.
In any case, I have contacted a lawyer directly (without going through Generali) to ensure prompt intervention in the event the administrator intends to implement the SOLUTION even without a resolution from the meeting. Because he's not honoring his commitments and responding to questions, I'm afraid I might suddenly find myself with three parking spaces marked out in front of my driveway and garage, as happened in 2009 with the aforementioned illegal parking space. 

I'm over 80 years old and have worked since I was 17, and I'm still working at a job that earns me a decent living. I purchased my apartment, with all its rights, paying appropriately, of course. But now the administrator wants to take them away from me to give away parking space to the other condominium owners.
But my condominium owners purchased their apartments with parking spaces of a certain width and have no right to enlarge it, at the expense of my right to easily access my garage, which I purchased and paid for.
In short, my condominium owners have no right to take away my rights, and therefore the administrator has no right to propose doing so.
But is it right that I, along with my partner, cannot live peacefully in my apartment during my final years, but must endure tensions and waste time and money defending my rights against an administrator?
But does the administrator respect the code of ethics established by the National Association of Condominium Administrators (ANACI)?
And it is to highlight this injustice to the world, including ANACI, that I have published this article, also in English, on my old website "trecimedilavaredo.ue," which I use to diffuse my astrophysics articles. In fact, the article can be found by using the site name, on both smartphones and tablets, via the Safari, Chrome, and Google apps. On PCs, it can only be found via Chrome. But since I am migrating the articles from the current site to a more Google-friendly one, in the future it will also be possible to find them by typing the article title or keywords like "comparto peep 7.3."
But I will also spread it through Twitter, where I have a user with hundreds of followers, linked to my website. 

When it comes to civil justice, Italy is far behind the Western world, but I believe this case will contribute to making it lag behind the rest of the world, as it should be. 

And now I'll tell the story below, for those who have the patience to read it.
 

Story 

On May 28, 1998, I signed the deed of purchase for an apartment in the Ai Tigli condominium, which, along with three other condominiums (Ai Carpini, Ai Faggi, and Cometa (owned by ATER Treviso), is part of the Comparto PEEP 7.3 supercondominium, located in Treviso on Via Mantovani Orsetti.
Since I was the first to commit to purchasing an apartment in the complex, risking losing the down payment if the builder went bankrupt (as fortunately happened after the condominium was built), I was able to choose the best option (and pay for it, of course): a relatively large apartment on the top floor with an attic space under exclusive ownership, a double garage, and two parking spaces—one next to the garage and with no size issues, and another next to a sidewalk and therefore with fewer size issues than the others.
So I have no need to enlarge my parking spaces. But my condominium owners claim they do, even though they knew the dimensions of the parking spaces when they purchased their apartments. Now, instead of buying a car with the appropriate dimensions, thanks to the administrator, they want to enlarge their parking spaces, even taking away my ability to access my garage. 

A prelude to this episode dates back to September 2009, when I suddenly found a parking space sign on the left at the end of the internal road, near the driveway leading to my garage. If occupied, this sign caused me considerable difficulty, especially when exiting if the parking space next to the garage was occupied (I would have to reverse a long U-turn, with poor visibility).
On that occasion, I contacted the Ai Faggi administrator, F.D., to find out the name of the person who made the signs, because I intended to report them to the police station, where I had already made inquiries. However, he did not provide me with the name and replied, "That a parking space, as per the original maps, has been reinstated as a service space used primarily by the Ai Faggi condominium." This was a lie, as I demonstrated in the reply I sent him. Because that parking space never actually existed, and the remaining sign that was visible was due to the botched erasure of a parking space that had been mistakenly marked, along with two others adjacent to it.
I then contacted the administrator of the super condominium at the time, R.D., who expressed his intention to intervene on my behalf, so I preferred not to file a complaint with the police. On October 28, 2011, I also hand-delivered him a letter demonstrating that the remaining markings on that parking space were due to an error, also thanks to a photo from 2005. However, it turned out that the illegally marked parking space was also shown on the plan attached to the condominium regulations, but was not mentioned in the regulations. Therefore, the administrator classified it as illegal and warned the perpetrator, F.D., who had meanwhile reported himself at a meeting, to remove the relevant markings (meetings in 2011 and 2014). He refused to do so, but without incurring any sanctions.
The signs were then removed by administrator L.G., who succeeded him after his resignation for personal reasons, but therefore after more than 5 years.
In conclusion, the person who committed the abuse did not face any sanctions, while I, the undersigned, nevertheless suffered the related inconveniences.
On that occasion, having noted some inaccuracies in the plan attached to my deed of purchase, I corrected it so that it reflected the actual state upon delivery of the apartments in the Ai Tigli and Ai Faggi condominiums. Therefore, I obtained another plan, which I have labeled the actual plan, and which also reflects the current state, as it has never been modified in 27 years, making the actual plan valid even by adverse possession. Compared to the plan attached to the condominium regulations, moreover, it does not contain the sign for the illegal parking space, thus making it perfectly compliant with the regulations.
I then attached it to the letter dated October 28, 2011, to administrator R.D., and the fact that both he and the subsequent administrator, L.G., took steps to have the illegal parking space removed demonstrates that they considered it valid.
Subsequently, condominium life continued peacefully, also because administrator L.G. performed her duties properly, regularly calling meetings and submitting the related minutes within the usual 10 days. This was until March 10, 2022, when the meeting, at the request of condominium owner F.P., appointed L.F. of Caorle as administrator, on the grounds that L.G. was allegedly too strict with the rules, so much so that she wouldn't allow the condominium owners to change the streetlight bulbs themselves, given that they weren't insured against accidents at work.
In any case, on that occasion I voted in favour of her permanence and thanked her for the good work she had done. And I wasn't alone. And since then, things have changed, so much so that, for example, the minutes of meetings are sent on average 39 days after they take place, therefore after the 30 days within which one can appeal against the resolutions, something I will have to keep in mind at the next meetings.
However, my current problems began during the meeting of June 5, 2024, when the condominium owner, Ai Faggi, R.D., the one who had marked the aforementioned illegal parking space, complained that the parking spaces assigned to his condominium were smaller than others, and the administrator promised to investigate.
At that time, I offered to provide floor plans and information in my possession because, as I wrote above, in 2009 I had to conduct research to have the illegal parking space removed.
However, I wasn't contacted. But I wasn't worried because I didn't think the parking space checks would pose any problems for me.
However, on November 6, 2024, my condominium owner, M.C., told me that a project had been developed to expand the parking spaces, which included two new parking spaces in front of the driveway leading to my garage. This would allow me to enter only with extreme difficulty and only if the parking space next to the garage was free. He also told me I was "marked," which I interpreted as "intimidation" not to oppose him. But since I don't accept intimidation, I was so furious that I decided to stop dealing with him, after 26 years of getting along well.
Therefore, to avoid the risk of experiencing problems similar to the one with the illegal parking space mentioned above, I immediately called the administrator and spoke with one of his employees, who asked me to send him all the documentation in my possession. So I emailed him a copy of the letter to the administrator dated October 28, 2011, along with five floor plans, including the actual one, and asked to speak with the administrator. He promised to do it with a "we'll see together." But he never did!
But shortly thereafter, I received an email with the project plan, which suggested a less invasive solution than I had been told, as the two new parking spaces would be created primarily in a shared green space, thus still allowing me acceptable access to the garage, albeit less convenient (April solution). Subsequently, I was also contacted by the project's author, surveyor G.B., a recent condominium owner, who explained the solution to me. And in an email I sent to the administrator on April 1, 2025, I considered the needs of the other condominium owners and expressed my willingness to accept the solution, although only after resolving the "intimidation" issue I felt I had experienced. But I was not contacted.
However, a meeting was convened on April 9, 2025, to discuss and eventually approve a "Proposal for the Redistribution of Parking Spaces," the less invasive proposal mentioned above (April solution), which included five new parking spaces that would allow for expansion of the remaining spaces. However, it was not even discussed, as it immediately proved unfeasible due to ATER's unwillingness to accept it.
And here's where new problems began for me!
Because during the meeting, the administrator said he would send the condominium owners the floor plan attached to the deeds of purchase of the Ai Carpini condominium, which could have been the Ai Carpini floor plan that had been delivered to me in 2009 by its administrator, R.D.. And based on it, everyone could have made proposals for expanding the parking spaces.
Specifically, as far as I'm concerned, the floor plan provides for two parking spaces right in front of my garage entrance, one of adequate width and another half-width, which were evidently marked only to complete the number of parking spaces required by the condominium regulations. 

During the meeting of April 9, 2025, I spoke to challenge the validity of the aforementioned plan as the starting point for the parking space modifications, and I proposed the actual plan. The administrator ignored my intervention, which was nevertheless acknowledged by the meeting chairman, G.B..
But the next day, Councilor F.P., who is participating in the studies for the redistribution of parking spaces, informed me that after the meeting, it had been decided to create the two new parking spaces in front of the driveway, as the less invasive solution was too expensive and I would have to accept it. So I wrote to the administrator to tell him that I was "tired of being intimidated and pressured" and to inform him of my challenge at the meeting, also specifying that based on the plan he considered as the starting point, two parking spaces would not have allowed access to my garage. But I received no response.
At that point, I spoke with Generali's legal consultancy firm, "Pronto Avvocato," with which I have a current legal protection policy. They advised me that, in my case, the floor plan considered valid for the modifications is the one attached to my deed of purchase. They then advised me to send a certified email to the administrator, urging him to include my comments in the meeting minutes. I did so on April 15, 2025, specifying the following:
"In my comments, I disputed the assertion made by surveyor G.B., namely, if I understood correctly, that the floor plan valid for (the redistribution?) of parking spaces is the one attached to the purchase contracts for the apartments in the Ai Carpini condominium, which was the first to be built.
However, I maintained that the valid floor plan for the Ai Tigli and Ai Faggi condominiums is the one that reflects the actual situation at the time of purchase of the apartments, which was 27 years ago, and that it has never been modified.
The administrator responded to me on April 18, 2025, via certified email (PEC), declaring his willingness to include my comment but insisting on the validity of "his" floor plan. He justified this by saying that "if a floor plan was attached to the first deed, all subsequent deeds must necessarily refer to it," and told me to check.
I, in turn, responded on April 22, April 23, and April 26, stating, among other things, that I had checked, but that both a lawyer and an accountant assured me that the valid starting floor plan was the one attached to my deed of purchase. But the administrator did not respond.
However, on May 26, 2025, the administrator sent the minutes of the April 9, 2025, meeting to the condominium owners, a full 47 days later. Attached to the minutes was a plan titled "Original plan of the 1st deed of sale." Point 5 of the plan outlined a series of premises and considerations, including:
- "The original deed was not respected."
- "The starting point is the original deeds, the contractual regulations, and the plans attached to the regulations, and it must be said that even the current situation does not fully reflect these documents."
- "The initial situation and any changes made are explained in detail." (At least, I don't recall this being the case.)
So, it was also admitted in the minutes that the "original plan" never conformed to the actual situation.
In any case, starting from the "original plan," the so-called SOLUTION  was proposed. And then it was proposed to "make observations on the proposed solution plans, which will be sent with the minutes, and then we will try to conclude. The observations must be submitted by June 30th, and then the Council will elaborate." While, as I wrote above, at the meeting the administrator had said he would send the plan of the first deed of sale, from which the condominium owners could propose their own ideas, to be submitted by June 30th. He also wrote that "Everyone is unanimously in favor of moving forward with this study," which might seem like a sort of vote was held on the matter, when he had simply said that everyone is in favor of increasing the size of their parking spaces, which is just a general statement, with which everyone is bound to agree. In truth, the April solution study had just been invalidated due to ATER's opposition, while the SOLUTION study was developed only after the meeting, so how could everyone unanimously agree on a study that didn't exist at that time?
Furthermore, he failed to report my objection to his assertion that "the valid plan for (the redistribution?) of parking spaces is the one attached to the purchase contracts for the apartments in the Ai Carpini condominium, which was the first to be built," as he had stated he was willing to report in his certified email of April 18, 2025. Instead, he merely reported that "Mr. Bruniera says that, as already sent to the Administrator, he has a plan that he claims is valid because it reflects the actual situation." It appears that the plan is valid only for me, and there is no evidence that it was also considered valid by the two administrators who preceded him, thus downplaying the validity of said plan.
So, as always, he has failed to keep his promises to me!
However, I asked Generali for a lawyer to have a judge declare the SOLUTION illegal, as they considered the original plan from the first deed of sale valid, and therefore the one to start with for the parking space modifications, even for my condominium, when it was not. A month later, Generali assigned me a lawyer in Verona, with whom I can only communicate via email. He told me that I can only appeal to a judge for actions that infringe my rights, which hasn't happened yet. And therefore, it will only happen if a resolution is issued to implement the SOLUTION.
In truth, at least in my opinion, the choice of the starting plan, which I discussed at length above to challenge the administrator's argument (wasting a lot of time), is a false problem, because what matters is the possibility of realizing the redistribution without unanimity, because, naturally, I would vote against its implementation. A lawyer and an accountant I consulted ruled this out, and I'm still waiting for a response from the administrator to my email of July 15, 2025.
However, in my response to the administrator regarding the comments requested, I didn't even consider the initial floor plan. In fact, here's my response.
I cannot accept the creation of the two parking spaces marked at the end of the internal road, as they would prevent me from entering the driveway leading to my garage. Nor can I accept the parking space in front of my garage, as it would prevent me from entering the garage.
In any case, I do not want any changes to the plan attached to the condominium regulations attached to the deed of purchase for my apartment, according to which I have exclusive use of two parking spaces, one next to my garage and another to the right of the row of parking spaces behind my building, marked with the numbers 30 and 11. I would like to point out that the plan corresponds to the actual state of the apartment when it was handed over and also to the current state, except for a parking space sign marked on the left at the end of the internal road, which the two administrators of the super condominium who preceded her considered non-existent because it was not included in the condominium regulations, so much so that they had it removed when in 2009 the condominium owner R.D. illegally marked it on the road.
Furthermore, I would like to inform you that both because you are presenting a SOLUTION, knowing full well that I cannot accept it, and because I don't trust that everything necessary will be done to legally and effectively maintain exclusive use of my current parking spaces, I would vote against any proposal to redistribute the parking spaces at the meeting.

However, as I wrote above, to adequately address any unpleasant and unexpected surprises, I have now consulted a lawyer in person (not via email), who can intervene promptly if necessary. 

End

Dino Bruniera
E-mail: dino.bruniera@gmail.com