The Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy (Second Section) rejected the appeal presented by 13 dissidents against the new AC Milan stadium in San Donato Milanese. Here is the complete text of the TAR order:
“The Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy (Second Section) has pronounced this order on the appeal general register number 634 of 2024, proposed by Giuseppe Bagnato, Giorgio Bianchini, Giuliana Carraro, Innocente Curci, Massimo De Marco, Marco Ferrari, Tiziana Teresa Galvanini, Milli Legatti, Riccardo Enzo Roberto Mancioli, Anna Nardi , Cristina Pinardi, Fabio Arturo Songa and Diego Vicinanza, all represented and defended by the lawyers Giuditta Carullo, Ilaria Battistini and Gherardo Carullo, with digital domicile as per PEC from Justice Registries and physical domicile at the lawyer’s office. Ilaria Battistini in Milan, via Montebello, 24;
against
Municipality of San Donato Milanese, in the person of the legal representative pro tempore, represented and defended by the lawyers Carlo Cerami and Silvia Cazzaniga, with digital domicile as per PEC from the Registries of Justice and physical domicile at the lawyer’s office. Carlo Cerami in Milan, Galleria San Babila, 4/A;
towards
SportLifecity Srl, represented and defended by the lawyers Federico Vanetti and Luca Andrea Frignani, with digital domicile as per PEC from the Registries of Justice and physical domicile at their office in Milan, via Verdi, 4;
Asio Srl, Metropolitan City of Milan and Lombardy Region, not appearing before the court;
for cancellation
– of the Resolution of the Municipal Council of San Donato Milanese n. 15 of 01/24/2024, published on 25 January 2024 concerning: “initial proposal for an urban planning variant for the implementation of an urban transformation intervention of a sporting nature (AC Milan Stadium) with supra-municipal relevance – evaluation favorable to practicability”;
– of the Implementation Plan (Integrated Intervention Programme) approved by the Municipal Administration, aimed at allowing the creation of a sporting settlement project with the location of a Sports Arena (new AC Milan stadium) with a capacity of approximately 70,000 seats and annexed structures and complementary which, due to specific characteristics, needs and purposes, in addition to constituting an intervention of supra-municipal importance, also involves a variation to the general instrument of Territorial Government (PGT) and provides for significant public and public utility works and infrastructures, cited in the Council resolution n. 15 of 01/24/2024 and published on 25 January 2024, unknown acts and details;
– of the preliminary technical analysis document for the purposes of verifying the feasibility of the proposal Attachment 1 to DG 15/2024;
– as well as any other connected, presupposed and/or consequential act, even in an unknown state,
AS WELL AS FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO EXHIBIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS
– request for variant proposal presented by SportLifeCity Srl on 09.28.2023 (protocol 39903/2023), as well as all related attachments which are currently unknown;
– power of attorney of the Consortium to SportLifeCity mentioned in the letter dated 04.01.2024, known to the undersigned defense as cited in the preliminary technical analysis document for the purposes of verifying the feasibility of the proposal Attachment 1 to DG 15/2024.
Having seen the appeal and its attachments;
Having seen the documents of appearance in court of the Municipality of San Donato Milanese and of SportLifecity Srl;
Having seen all the documents of the case;
Speaker in the council chamber on 18 June 2024, Dr. Giovanni Zucchini and having heard the defenders for the parties as specified in the report;
1. The representatives are residents in the Municipality of San Donato Milanese (MI) and with the appeal in the epigraph they have challenged the documents relating to an urban planning variant of a sporting nature and an implementation plan for the construction of a new sports structure, namely the stadium of AC Milan.
The appeal contains a request to show a series of documents relating to the aforementioned intervention.
Both the Municipality and the company proposing the intervention plan, namely SportLifeCity Srl, were established.
The Chamber of Commerce hearing to deal with the access request was set for 4 June 2024 and subsequently postponed to 18 June 2024, following the documentary production carried out by the other interested party.
At the aforementioned hearing on 18.6.2024 the case was discussed and sent for a decision, obviously limited to the request for access during the trial.
2. The summoned Municipality, in its defense documents, stated several times that it had already made the documentation requested by them available to some of the appellants (see documents 5 to 11 of the respondent); however, since this is a very copious documentation, the Administration has set up a special “Link” which can be accessed to read the documents and their attachments.
This “Link” is included in the Municipality’s defense briefs, most recently the one filed in view of the hearing on 18.6.2024.
The counter-interested company, for its part, with a note dated 3.6.2024 also filed a series of documents in court, including the power of attorney dated 30.5.2017 issued in its favor by Asio Srl.
Despite this, the defender of the exponents was not satisfied and even during the hearing of 18.6.2024 he insisted on condemning the Municipality to release the document constituted by the Consortium’s power of attorney to SportCityLife mentioned in the documents of the case (see in in particular documents no. 6 and no. 7 of the appellants), “with evidence of the attachment thereof to the request” (as stated in the conclusions of the appellants’ brief of 12.6.2024).
At the same hearing, the Municipality’s defender declared that all the requested documentation was produced or otherwise made available on the Administration’s website and that there is no document containing the alleged highlighting of the attachment of the power of attorney in favor of SportCityLife to the request, as requested by the representatives instead.
In this regard, remember that the request for document access has as its object exclusively documents that are in the possession of the Administration and cannot in any case be transformed into a sort of control of administrative operations nor can it force the Administration itself to form new documents (see art. 22 paragraph 4 of law no. 241 of 1990 and also the subsequent art. 24 paragraph 3 of the same law).
In jurisprudence see, among many others, Council of State, Section IV, sentence no. 8359 of 2010.
Consequently, the Board believes that the request for document access has been satisfied and that no proof has been offered of the existence of other documents which would have been unduly withheld from access.
In conclusion, the representatives no longer have an interest in the decision on their access request and this allows them to ignore the examination of the procedural exceptions raised by the intimate parties with regard to the aforementioned request.
3. The expenses of this phase will be paid with the final decision.
PQM
The Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy (Second Section) declares the access request contained in the appeal in the epigraph inadmissible.
Final expenses.
Thus decided in Milan in the council chamber on 18 June 2024 with the intervention of the magistrates:
Maria Ada Russo, President
Giovanni Zucchini, Councilor, Drafter
Stefano Celeste Cozzi, Director”.
