Small Bill Knit Beanies

Damage caused by delay: altered mental status also is compensable

Vistosi dismissed the action on the TAR Puglia in order to hear the town of Leporano order to recover damages flowing from the delay in issuing the permit to build in variant required, the applicant has appealed the first instance ruling 623 / 2007 TAR Puglia, Lecce , who alleged that, while absolutely no doubt the time limit for issuing building permits under Article. 20, 3 rd - 8 th paragraph, of Presidential Decree No 380/2001 and identified in 75 days of receipt of application (60 and 15 for the investigation to adopt the measure) should be excluded the requirement of subjective fault in Head of administration resistant to the effect of a particular complexity of the case and a series of occurrences beyond the municipal administration to Leporano (contrast between the opinions of the Superintendent, no-claims, etc.).. The Tar had added that the claimant would still be rejected for a number of issues relating to proof of damages.

By Ordinance No. 172/2010 Fifth Section of the State Council has found it necessary to have two technical consultant in order to ascertain:

a) the economic damage suffered by the appellant due to the late issuance of building permits in question to report period May 2002-May 2004;
b) the existence of the disease and alteration of mental status, alleged by the applicant, with date of onset and the existence or not of causation with respect to the delay in issuing the permit build and quantification of the corresponding damage.

advice and held the two reports filed, the case was retained in the decision.

With No Judgement 1271 filed February 28, 2011, the Fifth Section of the State Council:

• partly accepted the appeal and the effect, the reform of the contested decision, partially accepted the appeal at first instance, c ondannando the town of Leporano to pay to the applicant, by way of damages, amounting to € 55,345.03, as well as currency appreciation and interest in accordance with the statutory criteria set out in the recitals ;

• condemned the town of Leporano recast in favor of the appellant, expenditure of two levels of jurisdiction, paid in total amount of Euro 10,000.00, plus VAT and CP .;

• place the costs of the CTU borne by the municipality appealed .

The State Council has raised by the following syllogism:

1. The delay has resulted in a procedural delay in the so-called "good life " formed in this case the (im) possibility of building according to the project requested variant .
2. The giurisrudenza is peaceful in admitting damages by delay (provided of course that the damage there and it is proven) el'intervenuto art. 2 - bis, paragraph 1, of Law 241/90 , introduced by Law No 69/2009, confirms and strengthens the protection of private damages against the delays of the pa , ruling that the government and equivalent entities are required to pay damages caused injustice as a consequence of intentional or negligent of the deadline for completing the procedure.
3. The rule also requires that the time is a good of life for citizens and the courts have recognized that the delay in the conclusion of any process is always a cost ;
4. In this case, not notes the issue of Recoverability of damage caused by delay if not attributable to the so-called "good life" and the compatibility of the principles established by the plenary session Decision No 7 / 2005 with the new art. 2 - bis of Law 241/90, since the administration itself acknowledged that attributable to the (late) permit to build in variation.

these circumstances, the decision to verify the evidence of the existence of damage also in terms of damage cd. biological (stress delay) and causation to the aforementioned delay: circumstances motivated with a wealth of analysis and here for brevity not listed, we reserve a subsequent study. Sure surprising reliance on technical advice of the task to determine and quantify the economic damage , real such a determination does not qualify as a means of proof in a technical sense and can be placed solo al fine di acquisire apprezzamenti tecnici altrimenti non formulabili dal giudice, non può quindi servire ad acquisire gli elementi che compongono il danno lamentato e, quindi, la sua dimostrazione " (T.A.R. Basilicata Potenza, 21/02/2007, n. 62).

Ma, evidentemente, anche in questo campo dobbiamo prepararci a nuovi approcci sui limiti della prova avanti il giudice amministrativo.

La sentenza n. 1271/2011 del Consiglio di Stato é disponibile sul sito Giustizia Amministrativa a questo indirizzo