Italia | | Vercelli, Cuneo, Apulia, Bari, Barletta-Andria-Trani, Santa Marinella, Bracciano, Veneto, Belluno, Padua, Rovigo, Genzano di Roma, Colleferro, Frascati, Grottaferrata , Bassano del Grappa, San Dona di Piave, Schio, Brindisi, Foggia, Lecce, tarent, Emilia-Romagna, Bolonia, Ferrara, Alessandria, Asti, Biella, Novara, Cuneo, Turin, Verbania, Treviso, Venecia, Verona, Vicenza, Chioggia, Piamonte, Mentana, Palestrina, Ariccia, Bracciano Lake, ITALY Monterotondo, Ladispoli, Ardea, Cerveteri, Fonte Nuova, http://munilocalitalialavoro2.blogspot.com/
Code of the administrative process: first profiles of unconstitutionality Con ordinanza 18 novembre 2010, n. 800 , il TAR Campania, Napoli, sezione I, ha rimesso alla Corte Costituzionale l'art. 135, co. 1, lett. e), dell’art. 16, co. 1, e l’art. 15, co. 5, del codice del processo amministrativo. In base all’art. 135, co. 1, lett. e), in relazione all’art. 14, co. 1, del codice del processo amministrativo approvato con d. lgs. n. 104 del 2010, è devoluta alla competenza funzionale inderogabile del Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio, sede di Roma, la cognizione delle controversie di cui all’art. 133, co. 1, lett. p), in materia di giurisdizione esclusiva con riferimento a “ … le controversie comunque attinenti alla complessiva azione di gestione del ciclo dei rifiuti … ”. Ad avviso del TAR Campania, la disposizione appare in conflitto con il principio di uguaglianza sancito dall’art. 3 Cost. sotto il profilo della ragionevolezza della legge, nella misura in cui la deroga agli ordinari canoni di riparto tra i diversi tribunali amministrativi regionali, fondati on the effectiveness of the regional headquarters and issuing authority, does not appear supported by any evidence or adequate foundation is resolved, therefore, in a flagrant violation of that principle of reasonableness which is to limit legislative discretion in respect to the determination of territorial jurisdiction . The order of the TAR Campania is available at the Chamber of Administrative Como to this address. We thank Mr Jesus Cortez for your kind message.
Distances art. 9 DM 1444/1968: apply to the lights, not only for windows With No quick decision 4374 filed on December 2, 2010 , il TAR Piemonte, sezione prima, ha statuito che la disposizione contenuta nelle NTA del Comune di Almese (Torino), nella parte in cui prescrive che “ non s’intenderanno come pareti finestrate quelle in cui siano praticate esclusivamente luci (art. 901 c.c.) ”, è illegittima per violazione dell'art. 9, comma 1, del D.M 02.04.1968 n. 1444, il quale, correttamente interpretato nei termini esposti in sentenza, non consente di escludere dal concetto di “pareti finestrate” le ipotesi in cui nella parere siano presenti esclusivamente “luci” . La sentenza consolida l'orientamento dello stesso TAR Piemonte espresso con la sentenza n. 2565 del 2008. Decision No 4374/2010 is available at the Piedmont Regional Administrative to this address.
SEA: the Lombardy Region for the sixth time involved The 10 November 2010 the Lombardy Regional Council, by Act No. 9 / 761, has fired yet another (sixth) in the regional deliberations on the Strategic Environmental Assessment, which originated with reference to the " implementation of the provisions of the decree. June 29, 2010, No. 128, with amendments thereto dd.gr of December 27, 2008, No. 8 / 6420 and December 30, 2009, No. 8 / 10971 . "The resolution of the GRL has been published on the BURL n. 47, 2nd SS November 25, 2010. He was followed on December 14, 2010 , the explanatory circular , which aims to clarify some methodological steps of the procedural and organizational models of the environmental assessment of plans and programs contained in the annex to the text of the Board, providing "answers concrete to the many questions put to the regional offices . Here, the Region has taken the opportunity to take a position, without mention it, the sentence no 1526 of May 17, 2010 , the second section of the TAR Lombardia, Milan, which established the mandatory nature of the principle of separation between the different authorities of VAS, and that the prosecuting authority. In particular, paragraph n. 5 of the Circular, on the identification of those authorities, if the first part shows an apparent methodological adherence to the landing of the Regional Administrative Court, as required by placing the character of separation and autonomy, the second in the region takes into account cases in which such requirements are not raised. Ie: - Municipalities with only one sector / functional area in which it is permitted the identification of the Authority in the same industry / functional area, with the simple requirement for the council to explain and dictate instructions to give effect to the autonomy function;
- municipalities with a population less than 5000 inhabitants, where it is permitted the identification of the competent authority within the responsibility of the holder of the executive offices and for the protection and enhancement of the environment;
- all municipalities, with prediction, in general, the possibility of identifying the competent authority by appointment on contract for highly specialized in the field of environmental protection and enhancement pursuant to art. 110 of Legislative Decree no. 267/2000.
The last part in this paragraph provides for " What if I need to rename the authorities " (Incomprehensible to those who were not aware of the events referred to the decision TAR 1526/2010), a kind normally closed to remedy any irregularities occurred in the identification of Authority "with respect to discipline regional legislation (and findings of the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, we might add). It "suggests " To this end, to proceed with a new formal act of entrustment, and to accompany the first rulings of the Authority, once identified, with a determination of validation of previously carried out within the same SEA procedure. One would think if validation or ratifying it, but in any case must be taken note of the position of the region about recession. The full text of the determination of the Executive and the Circular are available on the website of the Lombardy Region dedicated to the VAS to this address.
Permission to build the system and the distances: the Council of State to consolidate its orientation With decision November 2, 2010, No 7731, the fourth section of the State Council reiterated its position regarding the application of dm 1444/1968 (Article 9) in terms of distance, in answer to further heights in the field of ex-DM and attics. element factual basis for the decision of the judges of the Palazzo Spada was that of a retaining wall height of one meter and a half and a length of about thirty meters from the ground campaign, which challenged the failure to account for the distance of a neighboring building. Recognized the nature of building the wall in question, the State Council said based on the ground of appeal with which he complained " the violation of art. 9 of the DMN-1968 and 1444 in any case limit the violation of the distances because absenteeism is lower than the expected ten meters, calculated by the windowed walls of both buildings . Still the general principle, the decision points out that the distance of ten meters between windowed walls of buildings opposite, under Article. 9, No DM 1444, 1968, shall be calculated: - with reference to each item of the buildings and not to those parts facing each other;
- all the windows and walls not only to the main , apart from the fact that they whether or not in parallel;
- having regard to all the components, including accessories , whatever its function, having the characteristics of strength, stability and immobilization.
exception, with regard to structural components and sports adjectives " of modest size with purely decorative and finishing, such as to be define a negligible part of the interest protected by the rule concerns in its triple aspect of safety, health and hygiene . "In other words, exemplifies the Council of State," shelves, pilasters, the vertical ribs of the Parties many decorative elements in the subject of small size, ductwork pipes and mountings, but no bosses, even hours of the genera mentioned, but of particular dimensions, which are thus also intended to extend and expand to the entire face of 'part of the building used for residential purposes . Still with reference to DM 1444, the decision contains an interesting record on heights ( Article 8). Notwithstanding the rule and its provisions prevail over local its application can only materialize with specific reference to surrounding homes, unable to see " to an unidentified area, rather than surrounding buildings, in the absence of further explanations and clearly with the risk of nullifying the scope of the precept .
Finally: the Council of State reversed the decision of First Instance stated that, in the assessment of building practice, you can not subtract from the calculation of floor area and height on the mansard roof improperly defined , because they have characteristics that exclude them from the type of rooms intended solely for occasional deposits. Or the same volume can be configured as technical books, since these are only those used exclusively for the facilities necessary for the use of the dwelling and can not be located within it. Therefore these are not - and then are counted in the permitted volume - the attic, the drying racks closed and "clearing", so that volume is not technical coverage plan, improperly defined the attic, but constituting, in Actually, as an attic with a significant average height from the ground gutter . Decision No 7731/2010 Section IV of the State Council is available at this address . We thank Mr Jesus Cortez for your kind message.
House Plan: The existing volume ^ ^ that is physically verifiable, not those absent for the second the planning instrument in the wake With No Judgement 1220 filed on June 14, 2010 the TAR Lombardia, Milan, established the principle that the term "existing volume " contained in the Lombardy region Law No 16 July 2009 13 (so-called housing plan) can not be understood that the volume physical activity levels at the time of presentation of the diagnosis (known volumes of piano), and not the maximum feasible volume in base all’indice di edificabilità fondiaria stabilito dallo strumento urbanistico . Un'interpretazione estensiva della norma regionale nel senso invocato dallo stesso Comune interessato (Segrate) in una sua circolare interpretativa, non soltanto, afferma il TAR, sarebbe in contrasto col tenore letterale della norma, e dunque col criterio cardine di ogni operazione ermeneutica, ma anche con la ratio della normativa in esame, che non intende in nulla sovrapporsi d’autorità al pianificatore comunale " attribuendo indiscriminatamente volumetrie ulteriori rispetto a quelle previste dagli strumenti urbanistici locali ". La sentenza n. 1220/2010 del TAR Lombardia é disponibile sul sito del TAR all'indirizzo http://www.giustizia-amministrativa.it/DocumentiGA/Milano/Sezione% 202/2010/201001220/Provvedimenti/201001840_20.XML
|
Region , Province, municipalities, universities, 
