Movida, new conviction for compensation of Milan residents
Discouraging scenes reported: bottles in the hallway of a building cleared by residents complaining of insomnia and poor work performance
New condemnation for compensation for the Milan City Council for movida damage. A week after the maxi fine totalling 250,000 euro to be paid to the residents of the Lazzaretto-Melzo district, on the basis of Milan Court ruling 9566/2025, against which the Municipality has already announced an appeal, the residents of Corso Garibaldi also obtained, on 23 December 2025 (ruling 9958/2025), about 6500 euro per damaged person, for the failure to fulfil the obligations to which the administration is bound.
Damage produced
The picture in the file was discouraging: the condominium hallway was cluttered with glasses, bottles and rubbish abandoned by the customers of the premises, and the residents complained of poor work performance attributable to exhaustion resulting from not getting a night's rest. Not only that, the number of patrons of the premises inhibited the passage of ambulances, and some of the patrons fell to the ground drunk in front of the building's entrance. The area has been the subject of litigation for years, to be precise, since September 2019, when the condominium owners, individually, appealed to the Tar (Regional Administrative Court) over noise and noise issues, obtaining reason in 2020 and restrictions on the premises in 2021.
In the section of Corso Garibaldi between Via Moscova and Via Marsala and in Largo La Foppa, central areas of Lombardy's capital, not far from Piazza Gae Aulenti, a stop had been imposed on take-away alcohol from ten o'clock in the evening and on the dehors of bars from midnight. The Municipality had had to intervene after the judgement of the Regional Administrative Court 2054/2020 prohibiting alcoholic or non-alcoholic drinks, even for take-away, at night.
Limits on authorisations and stiffer penalties
Now those restrictions are acknowledged to have been too mild. We read in the 25 pages of the ruling that, undoubtedly, the nightlife phenomenon and its effects are not attributable to active conduct on the part of the municipal administration, but from the aggregation of an excessive and uncontrolled number of people, attracted by the presence of the numerous commercial activities in the area. This is not, however, in itself sufficient to exclude the passive ownership of the relationship in the hands of the municipality and its liability, since there is a legal obligation to prevent an event.
No specific remedies are indicated in the judgment, but it is pointed out that, 'taking into account the concentration of establishments in the places at issue, one measure could be identified in the limitation of the issuance of authorisations for the serving of beverages to establishments located in the same street, so as to avoid a concentration of so many establishments in an all in all limited and restricted space, or rather the imposition of harsher sanctions, with the consequent revocation of the authorisations granted in the event of infringement'.
