Milan Court Orders Re-Seizure of Viale Papiniano Construction Site, Rejects Developer’s ‘Good Faith’
Milan, March 9 – The Milan Court of Review has ordered the re-seizure of the construction site at Viale Papiniano 48, where an eight-story residential tower with two underground levels is being built. This decision overturns an earlier ruling by the preliminary investigations judge, Sonia Mancini, who had rejected the prosecution’s request for seizure. The court sided with prosecutors Luisa Baima Bollone and Giovanna Cavalleri, who argued for the seizure due to alleged abusive land development, asserting that a simple SCIA (Certified Notification of Commencement of Works) was insufficient and an executive plan was required.
Investigation into Urban Planning Irregularities
The construction, which replaces a demolished two-story commercial laboratory, has been under investigation since 2024 for alleged urban planning offenses. Mauro Colombo, the works director, and Salvatore Murè, the legal representative and sole director of Papiniano 48 srl and Murè Costruzioni srl, are currently under investigation.
The Crucial 2024 Resolution
Judges Teresa Guadagnino, Carla Galli, and Alberto Nosenzo highlighted a crucial 2024 municipal resolution. This resolution, prompted by initial investigations, stipulated that while some exceptions to the requirement for an executive plan existed for buildings exceeding 25 meters in height and/or 3 cubic meters per square meter, these exceptions did not apply to cases like Viale Papiniano, where there were “elements of deviation from the morphological rules established by the general territorial plan.”
The defense, represented by lawyer Alberto Sirani, argued that this municipal reversal occurred after the deadline for administrative self-protection had expired. However, the Court of Review deemed this an “administrative defect of the act,” emphasizing that the Papiniano 48 srl company, since February 2024 and certainly by May 30, 2024, was aware that the project, due to its height and volume and deviations from the PGT, required an executive plan.
The judges stated that “from this moment, the company could only have had more than a few doubts regarding the legitimacy of the title under which it was operating, also because the intervention fell precisely among those considered by the aforementioned Municipal Council resolution no. 199 of February 23, 2024, and all sector operators, if not also ordinary citizens, were now aware that the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office was hypothesizing the crime of abusive land development in all cases of building construction carried out by means of a SCIA issued by the Municipality for renovation works.”
Developer’s Opinion Insufficient
Consequently, the Court of Review found fault with the developer, stating that culpability “cannot be excluded solely because the private individual has constantly interacted with the Public Administration.” In this specific case, the alleged illegitimacy of the building permit issued in 2023 was communicated to the investigated party by the Municipality itself. The court further noted that “it is not permissible to value, for the purpose of recognizing good faith, a different interpretation or opinion on the part of the private individual compared to clear and reiterated differing indications from the Administration.” The court also found it unacceptable to leave it to the private individual’s assessment whether parameters that might render further urbanization works unnecessary (or even unfeasible) for a new building were present, referencing the category of the “intercluded lot.”
This ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing urban planning investigations in Milan, underscoring the strict interpretation of building regulations and the accountability of developers even in cases where municipal permits were initially granted.
Source: milano.corriere.it
