The decision not to do i popular referendum on San Siro stadium was “illegitimate“. The sentence of Civil court Of Milano is a point in favor of Promoting Committee of the Referendum X San Siro and marks a watershed in the long negotiation for a new stadium Milan e Inter. On the one hand, in fact, it requires Palazzo Marino to re-evaluate the request for a referendum on the two clubs’ project for a new facility in place of the historic Meazza. On the other hand, also with respect to the rumors of a new AC Milan project in La Maura, it becomes “un warning for the future” because, explains a ilfattoquotidiano.it the lawyer Veronica Religious, “the sentence clarifies that if there is another project tomorrow, referendums can be requested and must be evaluated correctly”. The decision, say the spokesman of the Committee,”fully reopen the game that the Municipality has tried to address without consulting the citizens”.
Lawyer Dini together with his colleague Felice Besostridefended the reasons of the Citizen Committee, presenting an appeal against the decision of the Board of Trustees appointed by the Municipality, which last July 26th rejected the referendum proposals. That decision was declared “illegitimate” by the judge of the first civil section, Nicholas DiPlottiwho underlined the Committee’s right “to have its proposal submitted to popular scrutiny (propositional question), as well as that referred to in question abrogative“.
The request for a referendum on San Siro and the new stadium had arrived at a time when the project of the two Milan clubs now seemed to be in straight of arrival. Today, however, the situation has reversed: Milan has expressed its willingness to build its own plant nell’area dell’La Maura racecoursecurrently owned by Snitch. Inter, left with the match in hand from the Rossoneri, for now she has rejected the hypothesis of remaining alone at the Meazza, perhaps taking the road of renovation. The Nerazzurri are reportedly evaluating an area between Assago and Rozzano.
So what changes after the decision of the Court? “We talk about La Maura, but to date the only public documents are the declarations of public interest on the Inter and Milan project at the San Siro. If then the Municipality were to revoke the public interest, starting from scratch, then another referendum proposal will eventually have to be made”, explains lawyer Dini. Which also underlines another aspect that emerged from the Court’s ruling: “On the San Siro affair in general, the Municipality has not acted in compliance with the principles of transparency e participation. The whole procedure was handled in a rather manner authoritarian“.
“With today’s ruling defends the dright of expression from the citizenship and the Board of Trustees is asked to play its role in autonomy considering all positions on the pitch”, comments the Organizing Committee of the X San Siro Referendum in a note. A sentence which, the press release continues, “morally imposes on the
syndac Sala to promote a democratic referendum. The Referendum x San Siro, is ready to resume the awareness campaign e you petition which, given the developments of recent months, is increasingly necessary”. “At the confusion which reigns in the rooms of the administration it is necessary to respond with the democratic defense of real needs of and of the Milanese”, concludes the note.
After the Court’s ruling, the guarantor committee could be reconvened to reassess the possibility of a referendum on the Meazza. According to Judge Di Plotti, documents of subjects third parties – the two clubs – while the committee was unable to confront the management and not even reply to the briefs presented by Milan e Inter. “The college carried out an investigation without communicating the opinions to the referendum committee – says the lawyer Dini – The Municipality had 30 days to provide us with the opinions. They arrived on the 29th day, a Friday evening. The decision of the guarantors arrived on the following Tuesday morning”.
The Committee was therefore unable to speak with Palazzo Marino: “We were unable to present memory e counterargument. But in the meantime, in motivating the decision, the guarantors cite the memoirs of Inter and Milan which were not in the least part of the proceeding “, the lawyer reiterates. Which also underlines another substantial aspect recognized by the judge: “The decision of the guarantors says that both questions are inadmissible because the opinions of offices they all are negatives. But this It is not true: the proposal consisted of various letters, the offices had not expressed negative evaluations on all the questions. In addition some of the negative opinions from the offices were off topic“. So now “the ball passes to the guarantors”, concludes Dini, “who however will not be able to deal with the findings raised by the Court pretend nothing happened“.
