Previously, the Tar had also rejected the request.
The municipality of Rimini announces that “the State Council rejected the company’s precautionary appeal Asd Rimini Baseball with which the request was made suspension of the measure of the Municipality of Rimini for the return to the Baseball Stadium Authority. The ruling by the Council of State therefore confirms the previous order of the Emilia Romagna Regional Administrative Court, which already in December had expressed itself in favor of the municipal administration, rejecting the precautionary request advanced by the private individual. Following this latest ordinance from the Council of State, the Municipality of Rimini will then be able to proceed with the execution of the provision, returning to the availability of the plant.
The return of the sports facility in via Monaco had been arranged in compliance with the natural expiry of the agreement in place with the company, which was also followed by the deed of revocation of the commercial trail relating to the restaurant business attached to the facility.
The reasons expressed in the order of the Council of State state that there is no “serious and irreparable damage, considering that the agreement for the management of the plant expired on 30 October 2022. In this respect, relations with companies, athletes or managers of public establishments, the expiry date being known in advance to all parties involved”.
The Panel then subscribes to the judgment expressed by the Regional Administrative Court, highlighting that there is no “probability of validity of the appeal in the first instance, considering that, within the limits of the knowledge of the precautionary phase, the arguments contained in the contested Tar order appear to be acceptable” , which in its sentence decreed the legitimacy of the action of the Municipality of Rimini against the company, emphasizing among the various aspects how the Administration held the right to occupy the area despite the expiry of the concession (but having already submitted an application for renewal to the state property), while the private individual at the expiry of the concession held the asset “sine titulo”, i.e. without having ownership of it. For these reasons, the precautionary appeal – concludes the device – must therefore be rejected “.
