What Article 321 of the Criminal Code punishes
Article 321 gives criminal-law protection to historical, artistic, cultural or monumental heritage against its destruction or serious alteration. It punishes anyone who demolishes or seriously alters buildings specially protected for that interest, within the title of the Criminal Code dealing with offences relating to land-use planning, historical heritage protection and the environment. The provision does not protect any old building, only those enjoying special protection recognised under heritage legislation (assets of cultural interest, listed buildings, or those protected under urban planning rules).
Besides the main penalty, the article provides for a remedial legal consequence: courts may order, with reasons given and at the offender's expense, the reconstruction or restoration of the damaged work, without prejudice to any compensation due to bona fide third parties who may have been harmed.
Penalty
The penalty is, in all cases, six months to three years in prison, a fine of twelve to twenty-four months, and special disqualification from a profession or trade for one to five years.
Common scenarios
This offence typically arises where property developers or owners demolish, wholly or in part, a listed or protected building to sidestep planning restrictions and build a new property with greater floor area; in renovations or refurbishments that irreversibly alter protected elements of a façade, structure or a distinctive feature of a historic building without the required heritage authorisation; and in "gutting" operations on listed buildings that, while formally preserving the façade, destroy the protected interior in breach of the conditions set by the heritage authorities.
Defense strategy
The defense should start by checking whether the building actually held the "special" protection the offence requires at the time of the facts, since mere age or a building's sentimental value to the community does not automatically amount to the legal protection Article 321 requires. It is also worth reviewing whether the works carried out had administrative authorisation —even if later challenged— and whether the degree of alteration truly reaches the seriousness the offence requires, as opposed to legitimate maintenance or structural-consolidation work. Architectural expert evidence on the real scope of the intervention is decisive for assessing whether the work amounts to a serious alteration or an admissible renovation within the applicable protection regime. Where several professionals were involved —owner, architect, contractor—, it is also worth clarifying who actually decided the scope of the works, since the criminal charge should track individual decision-making rather than formal roles on a building permit.