It is forbidden to keep more than one dog in a block of flats if this is stipulated in the management regulations

The final paragraph of Article 1138 of the Civil Code stipulates that it is not possible to prohibit the ownership of domestic animals; however, this restriction applies to regulations adopted by a majority vote at general meetings. Conversely, in contractual regulations (which are of a contractual nature and accepted in the deeds of sale), such prohibitions remain effective and co-owners may take action to put an end to situations of danger, deterioration or intolerable disturbance caused by an excessive number of animals. This is clarified by the Court of Cosenza (judgement 960/2026), which based its decision precisely on this distinction and on the actual impact of keeping animals on the common areas.

The case concerned a flat owner who kept 12 dogs inside a flat used as the headquarters of an association operating in the field of the capture and management of stray dogs. The other residents considered that the situation breached the block’s regulations, which stipulated ‘a prohibition on keeping animals within private units where they create a dangerous situation due to their aggression, for reasons of hygiene and public health, or for the sake of public peace’. The organisation invoked the last paragraph of Article 1138 of the Civil Code, according to which ‘the rules of the regulations may not prohibit the ownership or keeping of domestic animals’.

The courts, at both first and second instance, have clarified, however, that the provision protects co-owners only from restrictions imposed by a majority. A clause prohibiting pets, if included in contractual regulations accepted at the time of purchase, is fully valid and binding, as in the case in question. Keeping 12 dogs in a flat amounts to the formation of a veritable pack, the judges write, and managing such a large number of animals in a residential setting poses a danger to the safety and security of the other residents. The barking (both at night and during the day) disturbs the peace and inevitably compromises hygiene, producing unpleasant odours and constituting a nuisance.

Consequently, the Court upheld the financial penalty imposed by the owners’ meeting (Article 70 of the implementing provisions of the Civil Code) for repeated breaches of the block of flats’ regulations and ordered the property to be vacated, setting the maximum limit for keeping pets at one animal, as provided for in the contractual condominium regulations.