Urban planning, Milan prosecutor goes to the Court of Cassation against first sentence of acquittals

It is not possible to "excuse", by canceling the crimes committed, "the incorrect interpretation of the law by subjects", such as the defendants, including "managers of an important municipality with decades of experience gained in construction offices", expert officials "and entrepreneurs and designers with equal skills in the construction field". Indeed, "they are required to show special diligence and prudence regarding the knowledge and application of the laws".

This was written by the Milan prosecutor Marina Petruzzella, who signed the appeal, directly to the Supreme Court, against the first instance ruling of the Court which, on 16 June, acquitted all eight defendants, including builders, designer, former managers and officials of the Municipality, "because the fact does not constitute a crime" from the charges of building abuse and illegal development in the case of the Torre Milano skyscraper in Via Stresa, i.e. the first verdict on one of the many proceedings on Milanese urban planning.

It was "certainly" not demonstrated, wrote judge Paola Braggion, what the prosecution claimed, "namely that, in order to obtain consent for the building intervention" and "obtain the housing permits for the construction of Torre Milano, there was an illicit agreement between builders and officials, aimed at finding 'convenient' and incorrect interpretations of the rules to be applied" or at "forming illegitimate administrative acts". The defendants, according to the judge, acted "thinking they were operating in compliance with the PGT", the territorial government plan, "and the regional law, in line with administrative jurisprudence and the opinions of the Municipal Attorney's Office, as the interpretative conflict arose only after 2023" between the rules, while Torre Milano was built before 2022.

The prosecutor, however, in 85 pages of appeal, citing case law, completely overturns the reasons for the sentence. One cannot "excuse ignorance of the law", speak of an error in good faith "of the entrepreneur, as well as of the public administrator, manager and official of the building offices, especially if it is a source of doubts and controversial jurisprudence, as well as a source of economic advantages for the private individual to the detriment of the community".