11 at encouraging savings and initiatives and representing the "result of the individual desire for profit"25. It follows that, according to this theory, a social function would be configurable only regarding productive goods, the failure to use of which would be detrimental to the community. This place, it does not seem, however, to doubt that with the concept of social function, outlined by art. 42, co. 2, Cost., the legislature intended to delimit the notion of property under art.832 c.c. And this, because the owner is no longer allowed to enjoy and dispose, in an absolute way, of the property that belongs to him, but combining these powers with the obligation of social solidarity. The social function is, therefore, a characteristic connatural to the property, place that the art.42.co.2,Cost. "does not provide exceptions to the rule of the function of private property"26. In particular, certain hypotheses of conformate ownership are found in the ownership of cultural property and in land ownership, understood with reference to both agricultural property (the functionalization of which emerges from Article 44 Cost. and from the numerous laws governing the subject), both urban, in relation to which we think of building regulations, which may prohibit the owner from constructing or which require the adoption of certain criteria in so doing, or to the rules protecting the tenant of buildings, irrespective of the residential use of the property. As regards, however, the law U.E. and its relationship with property, it should be noted that, both in the Schuman Declaration of 1950, both in art. 83 of the ECSC Treaty and in art. TFEU 345 states that "the Treaties do not in any way affect the existing system of property ownership in the Member States". Hence the argument that the rule would appear to state the neutrality of the EU with respect to ownership. Such neutrality, however, is not absolute. Think, in this regard, to what makes it possible to obtain the principle of subsidiarity, in the light of art. 3 of TEU. Under this principle, in fact, the institutions can intervene when certain objectives can be achieved in a more profitable way at European level, rather than at national level, and these objec- 25 Cf. R. SACCO, op. cit. , p. 77 26 Cf. P. PERLINGERI, op. cit. p. 899 and A. JANNELLI, La proprietà costituzionale, Naples, 1980, p. 26.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==