The judgement

Milan: all acquitted in the first ruling on town planning

The decision was taken by Judge Paola Braggion of the Seventh Criminal Division

by Giuseppe Latour and Sara Monaci

16 June 2026

5' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

5' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

All eight defendants charged with building regulations offences and unauthorised land subdivision have been acquitted on the grounds that the act does not constitute a criminal offence. This is the first verdict to be handed down following one of the many investigations launched by the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office into town planning management, namely the case of the Torre Milano skyscraper in Via Stresa. The decision was made by Judge Paola Braggion of the Seventh Criminal Division. Prosecutor Marina Petruzzella had sought eight convictions and the confiscation of the tower.

The major investigations into urban planning that have characterised – and cast a shadow over – Milan over the last two years thus appear to have come to a halt. Last year, the corruption-related strand of the case had already been dismissed by the Review Court, which, one month after the suspects were remanded in custody, had released them (including the former Councillor for Urban Planning, Giancarlo Tancredi, and the CEO of Coima, Manfredi Catella); today’s verdict acquits all of them of the offence of building regulations abuse.

It should be borne in mind that this is the first and only case to have reached a verdict, and that we are still only at the first instance: there is still a long way to go in the legal proceedings. However, one cannot help but regard this development as a halt to the process, given that Milan was looking to this very ruling for regulatory guidance to replace what the political sphere has failed to deliver. The so-called ‘Salva Milano’ bill, for example, was shelved during parliamentary debate a year and a half ago – precisely as a result of the investigation into alleged corruption, which prevented a calm debate from taking place.

Let’s look at the case. According to the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office, supported in its investigations by the Financial and Economic Crime Unit of the Guardia di Finanza, the construction of Torre Milano on Via Stresa – an 80-metre-high, 24-storey building – was carried out using a ‘SCIA with a binding undertaking’, that is, a self-certification, rather than an Implementation Plan with an urban planning agreement, which would have taken into account the ancillary services to be provided in the area. According to Public Prosecutor Marina Petruzzella, a new building was falsely passed off as a renovation.

This approach, which had led to charges being brought for various offences, was rejected by the court, which – pending the publication of the grounds for the decision – issued a statement signed by its president, Fabio Roia. For all the defendants – the statement reads – «the subjective element of the offence is lacking, whether intentional or negligent, given that only in recent years have criminal case law, administrative case law and even the most recent rulings of the Constitutional Court offered various interpretations of the concept of ‘restructuring’ arising from the notion of ‘restructuring’ referred to in Article 3(d) of Presidential Decree 380/2001, in force in 2018, and on the validity and applicability of Article 41-quinquies, paragraph 6, of Law 1150/42’.”

Furthermore, ‘the established practice of the Municipality of Milan, arising from the application of regional law, the General Territorial Plan (PGT) and the building regulations, endorsed by the municipal legal service since 2002, ratified until 2023 by the City Council’s Circular No. 1 and supported by settled administrative case law of the Regional Administrative Courts and the Council of State, permitted the Torre Milano development under the planning permission actually granted to Opr srl’. In other words, the defendants’ conduct was based on a widespread administrative and case-law practice, which would only change at a later stage.

This preliminary assessment is significant because it forms the basis for many other cases: according to the investigators, the City of Milan failed to take into account the town planning legislation still in force (the Ponte Act of the 1940s), preferring to ‘circumvent’ the renovation regulations which would otherwise require the retention of a silhouette similar to the previous one (in essence: you cannot build a skyscraper in place of a warehouse) and, in cases of major alterations to the surrounding areas, to make use of an Implementation Plan or a Building Permit. For supporters of the ‘Milan model’, however, the Consolidated Building Act of the 2000s would legitimise such constructions.

Another key development will therefore be the ruling on Park Towers in Crescenzago, another high-profile case that has become a symbol of this affair. In total, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has launched investigations into sixty cases, at least 12 of which are particularly significant. Among these, the Bosconavigli project by architect Stefano Boeri stands out.

In this trial, last April the prosecutor had sought eight convictions for the offences of building regulations breaches and unauthorised land subdivision, as well as the confiscation of the Tower. A sentence of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 euros had been sought for Giovanni Oggioni, former director of the council’s One-Stop Building Permit Office and former vice-chairman of the Landscape Commission (who was also arrested in March 2025 in connection with another corruption investigation and is facing charges in several other cases). The same sentences were sought for the entrepreneurs and builders Stefano and Carlo Rusconi.

The prosecutor had also sought sentences of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 euros for two other defendants, Franco Zinna, a former senior official at Milan’s Town Planning Department, and Gianni Maria Beretta, an architect and designer; two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros for Francesco Mario Carrillo and Maria Chiara Femminis, and one year’s imprisonment and a fine of 16,000 euros for Pietro Ghelfi, three former officials of the One-Stop Shop for Building Permits. Nothing came of it. The verdict acquits everyone. The grounds for the verdict will be available within 90 days. We will see what happens with a possible appeal by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Meanwhile, quite apart from any criminal implications, the investigations have already led to some consequences. Milan City Council has intervened heavily in the process of issuing planning permission, going so far as to ask operators who are willing to cooperate to undertake a sort of ‘voluntary rectification’, that is, the opportunity for those who had obtained the SCIA to regularise their position with the Council by paying the full amount of the urbanisation charges. This is an unusual procedure, the outcome of which is uncertain, but one deemed necessary by Palazzo Marino in order to comply with the investigators’ interpretation of the law.

The legal precedents that have since set the standard are the Supreme Court judgement of 21 July 2025 on the Residenze Lac, which emphasises the need to commence construction only after an Implementation Plan has been issued; the Council of State’s judgement of 3 November 2025 on the building in Via Fauché (which has since been demolished), which redefines the scope of the concept of renovation.

And this is precisely where the other problematic aspect of the case lies. With this decision, the Court of Milan has clearly set out its position, and it is highly likely that this will be upheld in future. The situation is different in the Court of Cassation and in other areas, such as administrative proceedings, where the problematic nature of these procedures could be confirmed in the future.