Independent journal on economy and transport policy
11:48 GMT+1
This page has been automatically translated by Original news
the REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Venetian cancels the action of the Harbour office of Venice that imposed limitations to the crocieristico traffic in Giudecca and S. Marco
Coast: "we with confidence attend the decisions that the government will want to take, as soon as possible"
January 9, 2015
Today the Regional administrative court for Veneto, with sentence that we publish below, has cancelled the action of the Harbour office that imposed limitations to the crocieristico traffic in channel of the Giudecca and Basin S. Marco to Venice.
"We take note today - the president of the Harbour Authority of Venice has commented, Paolo Costa - of the issued sentence from the Regional Administrative Court Venetian, an ulterior stimulus so that able decision is taken to remove the ships from S. Marco without to put in crisis the Venetian crocieristica excellence, so allowing to exit from the impasse that lasts by now from too much time. We with confidence attend the decisions that the government will want to take, as soon as possible".
N. 00013/2015 REG.PROV.COLL.
N. 00146/2014 REG.RIC.
N. 00171/2014 REG.RIC.
N. 00284/2014 REG.RIC.
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Regional administrative court for Veneto
(Section Before)
it has pronounced anticipates
SENTENCE
on the resource number of general registry 146 of 2014, proposed they give:
Venice Passenger terminal s.p.a., in person of the legal representative pro tempore, represented and defended from lawyers Giuseppe Scuglia, Francesco Maria Curato and Vittorio Domenichelli, with address which elected near the study of the second in Venice, Rome Large square, 468/B;
against
Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports, in person of the Minister pro tempore, Prime Minister's Office, in person of the President pro tempore, represented and defended for law from the District Legal profession of the State, domiciled in Venice, San Marco, 63; Ambient ministry and of the Protection of the Territory and the Sea, in person of the Minister pro tempore, Venice Harbour office, in person of the legal representative pro tempore;
regarding
Harbour authority of Venice, in person of the legal representative pro tempore; Magistrate of Waters of Venice, in person of the legal representative pro tempore; Defended ministry, in person of the Minister pro tempore;
and with the participation of
to opponendum:
Municipality of Venice, in person of the Mayor pro tempore, represented and defended for law from lawyers Antonio Iannotta, Giulio Gidoni and Marzia Masetto, with address which elected in Venice, S. Marco, 4091; Codacons, Association Users Aerial Transport, Marittimo and Farroviario, in person of the legal representative pro tempore, represented and defended from lawyers Gino Giuliano and Carlo Rienzi, with address which elected near the secretariat of the Court according to art. the 25, codicil 1, of the cod. proc. amm.;
on the resource number of general registry 171 of 2014, proposed they give:
Bassani s.p.a., in person of the legal representative, Tugs pro tempore Reunited Panfido s.r.l., in person of the legal representative pro tempore, represented and defended from lawyer Roberto Longanesi Cattani, with address which elected near its study in Venice, Rome Large square, 466/B;
against
Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports, in person of the Minister pro tempore, Prime Minister's Office, in person of the President pro tempore, represented and defended for law from the District Legal profession of the State, domiciled in Venice, San Marco, 63; Ministry of the Atmosphere and the Protection of the Territory and the Sea, in person of the Minister pro tempore, Harbour office of Venice, in person of the legal representative pro tempore;
regarding
Harbour authority of Venice, in person of the legal representative pro tempore; Magistrate of Waters of Venice in person of the legal representative pro tempore;
and with the participation of
to adiuvandum:
Committee Cruise Venice, Ormeggiatori Group of the Venice Port associates. coop. Venice Ho.St. Rl, Conepo Services Coop. Associates to r.l., Tositti & Cambiaso - Risso s.r.l., Guards to Fires of the Venice Port - associates. coop. for actions, Venice Shipping Services s.r.l., in person of the respective representatives lawyers pro tempore, all represented and defended by lawyer Roberto Longanesi Cattani, with address which elected near in its study in Venice, Rome Large square, 466/B;
to opponendum:
Codacons, Association Users Marine and Railway Aerial Transport, in person of the legal representative pro tempore, represented and defended from lawyers Carlo Rienzi and Gino Giuliano, with address which elected near the secretariat of the Court according to art. the 25, codicil 1, of the cod. proc. amm.;
on the resource number of general registry 284 of 2014, proposed they give:
Municipality of Venice, in person of the Mayor pro tempore, represented and defended for law from lawyers Antonio Iannotta, Marzia Masetto and Giulio Gidoni, domiciled in Venice, S. Marco, 4091;
against
Harbour office of Venice, in person of the legal representative pro tempore, Harbour Authority of Venice, in person of the legal representative pro tempore, Magistrate to Waters, in person of the legal representative pro tempore; Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports, in person of the Minister pro tempore, represented and defended for law from the District Legal profession of the State, domiciled in Venice, San Marco, 63; Venice Passenger terminal s.p.a., in person of the legal representative pro tempore, represented and defended from lawyers Vittorio Domenichelli, Francesco Maria Curato and Giuseppe Scuglia, with address which elected near the study of the second in Venice, Rome Large square, 468/B;
for the cancellation
as for the resource n. 146 of 2014:
- of the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153/2013 having to object, in pretension execution of art. the 3 of I interministerial decree n. 79/2012, the limitation of the transit in the channel of the Giudecca of fleeting ships of advanced tonnage to 40.000 GT (for year 2014); let alone the prohibition for year 2015 of the transit in the channel of San Marco and the channel of the Giudecca of advanced fleeting ships of tonnage to 96.000 GT; of the directives of the Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports of the 20.11.2013 to the Harbour office having to object the adoption of the measures of mitigation for transient period 2014 and 2015; of all the presupposed, connected and consequenziali actions, also you do not notice and in particular of the official notice of the Prime Minister's Office on November 5, 2013, of note A.P.V on December 4, 2013 having to object the communication of the understanding of former Harbour Authority art. 3 of I interministerial decree n. 79 on March 2, 2012, let alone of the note of the Magistrate of Waters of having Venice parimenti to object the communication of former understanding art. 3 of I interministerial decree n. 79 on March 2, 2012;
as for the resource n. 171 of 2014:
- of the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153/2013 having to object, in pretension execution of art. the 3 of I interministerial decree n. 79/2012, the limitation of the transit in the channel of the Giudecca of fleeting ships of advanced tonnage to 40.000 GT (for year 2014); let alone the prohibition for year 2015 of the transit in the channel of San Marco and the channel of the Giudecca of advanced fleeting ships of tonnage to 96.000 GT; of the directives of the Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports of the 20.11.2013 to the Harbour office having to object the adoption of the measures of mitigation for transient period 2014 and 2015; of all the presupposed, connected and consequenziali actions, also you do not notice and in particular of the official notice of the Prime Minister's Office on November 5, 2013, of note A.P.V on December 4, 2013 having to object the communication of the understanding of former Harbour Authority art. 3 of I interministerial decree n. 79 on March 2, 2012, let alone of the note of the Magistrate of Waters of Venice having to object the communication of former understanding art. 3 of I interministerial decree n. 79 on March 2, 2012;
as for the resource n. 284 of 2014:
- of the decree of the Harbour office of Venice - Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports n. 153 of 5.12.2013 the relative one to the ulterior measures of mitigation of risk connected to the temporary regime in the part in which it limits the percentage of passages of the great ships to 12.48% rather than to the percentage of indicated 20% which optimal from I interministerial decree “Clini-Passera”; let alone of every annexed, connected or presupposed action, in particular of the shipping/note of the Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports in 20 date November 2013.
Seen the relative resources and the attached ones;
Seen the certificates of incorporation di in judgment of Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports, Prime Minister's Office and of Venice Passenger terminal;
Seen the defensive memories and all the actions of the cause;
Reporter in the public audience of the day 26 November 2014 Dr. Enrico Mattei and hearings for the parts the defenders as specified in the minutes;
Considered and considered in fact and right how much follows.
FACT
With actions of resource (nn.rr.gg. 146/14 and 171/14), respective notified, Venice Passenger terminal s.p.a., Bassani s.p.a and Tugs on 30 January and on February 3, 2014 Reunited Panfido s.r.l have dared the intestate Court in order to ask the cancellation for the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. the 153/2013 having to object limitation, for year 2014, of the transit in the channel of the Giudecca and the channel of San Marco of fleeting ships of advanced tonnage to 40.000 tons, let alone the prohibition, for year 2015, of the transit in the same channels of advanced fleeting ships of tonnage to 96.000 tons.
It specifies the College that the current disputes also make reference to first interministerial decree of the 2/3/2012 and from the next ministerial provision bringing date 20/11/2013 to the contents of which the cited decree of the Harbour office is riferibile as above.
They premise the recurrent ones of being society shopkeepers, respective, activity of operations management fleeting of disembarkation/boarding near the marine station of Venice and towing of the ships in transit in the channels of the Giudecca and of San Marco, which seriously would be compromised, under the economic profile, by the interdittive measures to navigation brought back in the appealled provision.
O'clock by right, the recurrent societies have entrusted the encumbrance to the following reasons:
I. Violation and forges application of art. the 3 of the d.m n. 79/2012 and of art. the 83 of the Navigation code.
They adduce, with regard to, the bastardy of the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153/2013, because deprived of the foundations previewed for its emanation from art. the 3 of I interministerial decree n. 79/2012, to tenor of which the measures finalized to mitigate the risks connected to the passage of the c.d. “great ships” in the channel of the Giudecca and the channel of San Marco, could only have found application “beginning from the availability of practicable ways of navigation alternatives to those prohibited, as characterized from the marine Authority with own provision”.
II. Violation and forges application under various profile of art. the 3 of the d.m n. 79/2012 and of art. the 83 of the Navigation code. Defect of competence and attribution. Violation of the principle of contrarius actus and the incompetency under various profile.
They allegate, in purpose, than the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153/2013, let alone the note of the Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports in 20 date November 2013, of which the foretold decree it constitutes performance, illegitimate because would be assumed in absence of the necessary concert of the Minister of the Atmosphere and the Protection of the Territory and the Sea, as demanded from art. the 3 of the Navigation code if they arrange measures of protection of the marine atmosphere.
III. Excess to be able for lacked and however erroneous appraisal of the foundations to all purposes and effects. Absolute defect of preliminary investigation and deficiency of motivation. Defect of proportionality, manifest contraddittorietà with precedence actions. Illogicità. Violation of the principle of I legitimize confidence.
They complain, in the specific one, than the appealled provisions illegitimate because the advance location and the next environmental risk assessment would be assumed without that the interdittive measures contemplated there would have had to contain.
IV. Excess to be able under the profile of the violation of the proportionality principle. Contraddittorietà regarding precedence actions. Unreasonableness. serious and infallible prejudice for the economy and the occupation.
They support, in purpose, the bastardy of the contested interdittive measures to navigation because regarding the objectives in concrete terms persecuted, they would be set in contrast with the principle of proportionality of the administrative action.
V. Excess to be able in the symptomatic figure of the sidetracking.
They allegate, in particular, than said measures they would not be adopted for some of the purposes previewed from the enforced legislation (protection of the marine atmosphere, safety of navigation, etc), but precipuamente according to mere “visual impact”.
YOU. Violation of the principle of I legitimize confidence. Violation and forges application of the norms that protect the participation to the procedure of the interested one and of art. the 21 quinquies of the law n. 241/90.
With regard to, the single recurrent Venice Passenger terminal s.p.a., supports that the appealled actions would be in contrast with the principle of legitimize confidence, as they would not have taken into consideration the terminalistica activity that it carries out in force of the Single Act of state property concession of 2000.
The intimate Administrations have been formed in judgment in order to resist to the resource, asking of the refusal for infondatezza of the proposed doglianze.
They are, also, constituted in judgment with actions of participation to opponendum the Codacons and the Municipality of Venice, insisting they also the refusal of the encumbrance.
They are, at last, constituted with action of participation to adiuvandum the Committee Cruise Venice and other operating societies in harbour within, sharing totally suesposti the reasons of impugnation.
With separated resource action (n.r.g. 284/14) notified in date 3 February 2014, the Municipality of Venice has also it appealled the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153 on December 5, 2012, complaining that contained the interdittive measures in it would not be sufficient to mitigate the risks connected to navigation of the c.d. “great ships” in the channel of the Giudecca and the channel of San Marco.
In the specific one, the Municipal administration has formulated the following doglianze:
I. Excess to be able. travesty of the facts. Deficiency of preliminary investigation. Deficiency of motivation. Manifest perplexity. Contraddittorietà between actions.
It supports, in purpose, than the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153/212 deficiency would be illegitimate for of preliminary investigation and defect of motivation, because in the premises of the same one the specific reasons that have carried to the determination of the number maximum of passages allowed - pairs with 708 “transits in the channel of San Marco and the channel of the Giudecca of fleeting ships of advanced tonnage with 40.000 GT, for year 2014” would not be brought back (cfr. art. 1 of the decree) - and therefore in suitable measure to avoid effects negatives for the lagoon atmosphere.
II. Violation of law. Application forges of interministerial decree n. 79/2012. Excess to be able. Contraddittorietà between actions. Manifest perplexity. Deficiency of preliminary investigation and motivation.
It finds, in the specific one, than from the number of previewed transits the which maximum limit from the Harbour office in the decree appealled with reference per year 2014, it would not derive a reduction pairs to 20% regarding the number of accesses taken part in year 2012, as instead wished from the contained directives in the note of the Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports on November 20, 2013.
III. Violation of the constitutional principle of constitutional rank of the loyal collaboration between agencies. Excess to be able. Deficiency of preliminary investigation. Deficiency of motivation. Contraddittorietà and perplexity of the motivation.
It complains, in particular, the lacked respect the principle of loyal cooperation, considering that the contained measures of mitigation in the decree de would be adopted here in absence of any confront with the other interested administrations between which: the Ministry of the Atmosphere and the Protection of the Territory and the Sea, the Cultural Ministry for the Assets and Activities, the same Municipality of Venice and, last, the operating associations and societies in harbour within.
With precautionary decrees nn. 178 and 179, deposited in 17 date March 2014, the College have received the request of suspension of the appealled provisions, having stated the presence of the foundations of law for its acceptation.
To such care, the College has, between the dark one, found that “the measures under investigation are set (…) in contrast with the specific principle of gradualness enunciated from the D.M n.79/2012, based on which the interdiction of the transit can be allowed only beginning from the moment of the effective availability of a way alternative, with this substantially anticipating that prohibition that instead, would have had to be preceded from opportune, necessary precautionary measures, to adopt itself waiting for such availability, to the aim to mitigate the risks connected to the transitory regime, pursuing the maximum level of protection of the lagoon atmosphere”.
With next collegiate decrees nn. 925/14 and 926/14, deposited in date 27 june 2014, the College have arranged implementations instructors at the expense of the Harbour office of Venice to the aim to acquire the containing directory, for year 2014, the total number of the transits in the channel of the Giudecca of fleeting ships of advanced tonnage to 40.000 tons, let alone those to the state previewed until the term of the foretold annuity.
To the outcome of the preliminary investigation, the number of the carried out transits is emerged that/estimated, pairs to 714, on the maximum number of 708 provisional passages for year 2014, from the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153/2013, this that equivalent has attested to a situation in fact substantially to that which it would have happened if the effects of the contested interdittive measures of navigation were not suspended with the precautionary decrees which emanated from the College and that, therefore, have not involved some configgente practical effect with the deliberated one of the Harbour office.
Last, with decree n. 1253/14, deposited in date 3 October 2014, the College has arranged the acquisition of the deliberation in date 8 August 2014, with which the “Committee for the safeguard of Venice and of its lagoon” had preannounced the adoption of a new one interministerial decree “face to confirm and to widen the restrictions to the crocieristico traffic along the previewed saint channel Marco in the decree n. 153 of 2013”, provision that, beginning right now, is found not to be is still emanated.
To the public audience of the day 26 November 2014, advance audition of the defenders of all the parts in cause, the resources have been withheld in decision.
STRAIGHT
Decision anticipates ago keeps on the precautionary decrees nn. 178 and 179 on March 17, 2014, remained both inoppugnate in a position to appeal, with which the College has suspended the effects of the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153/2013 having to object, for year 2014, the limitation of the transit in the channel of the Giudecca and the channel of San Marco of fleeting ships of advanced tonnage to 40.000 tons, let alone the prohibition, for year 2015, of the passage in the same channels, of advanced fleeting ships of tonnage to 96.000 tons.
As a result of such determination in precautionary center, have not been recorded, at a distance of beyond 10 months, some resolutive participation in order to the total order of the involved interests and the problematic ones in action
Although along amount of time passed between it pronounces the precautionary and current decision of merit, until now precluded from the found requirement of activity preliminary investigation (you see collegiate decrees nn. 925, 926 and 1253 of 2014), must be found second that the repeated consultations record yourself in topic, by the several competent authority in matter, have not reached solutions shared by all the interested ones, how much wished from the Committee for the safeguard of Venice and its lagoon with the deliberation in 8 date August 2014.
With such action the adoption of a new one was previewed interministerial decree “face to confirm and to widen the restrictions to the crocieristico traffic along the previewed saint channel Marco in the decree n. 153 of 2013”, this that could have involved, about to fact, the cessation of the matter of relative competing for to the action of the currently appealled Harbour office.
Of it derives that, to the present time, the existing situation does not part substantially from that considered from the Court to the age of the emanation of the going back precautionary provision to March 2014.
As well as premised, in via preliminary matter, the College arranges the reunion of the rerun epigrafati ones, being the obvious objective connection, being all equally which foreordained to the cancellation of the same provisions, even though for opposite reasonings, declaring the fondatezza of the variously deducted censorships, second how much in prosieguo, and therefore arranging the acceptation of the encumbrances reunited with particular reference to first and to the third reason of resource of the recurrent societies.
With the first reason, the recurrent societies support that the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153/2013 would be illegitimate because deprived of the foundations previewed for its emanation from art. the 3 of I interministerial decree n. 79/2012, to tenor of which the measures finalized to exclude the risks connected to the passage of the c.d. “great ships” in the channel of the Giudecca and the channel of San Marco can find application only and exclusively “beginning from the availability of practicable ways of navigation alternatives to those prohibited, as characterized from the marine Authority with own provision”.
It benefits to premise with regard to, than article 2, lett. b), point 1), of I interministerial decree n. 79 on March 2, 2012, rubricato “measures for the protection of particularly vulnerable areas” - and of which the appealled decree of the Harbour office of Venice constitutes, for expressed callback in the part it motivates, specific implementing provision - arrange punctually that “in the lagoon of Venice: the transit in the Channel of San Marco and the Channel of the Giudecca of the ships used after the transport is prohibited advanced goods and passengers to 40.000 tons of tonnage; (…)”.
Next article 3, rubricato transitory Dispositions, previews, moreover, that “the prohibition of which to art. the 2, codicil 1, lett. b), point 1) beginning from applies to the availability of ways of practicable navigations alternatives to those prohibited, as characterized from the marine Authority, with own provision. In the blackberries of such availability the Marine Authority, understanding with the Magistrate to waters of Venice and the harbour Authority, adopts finalized measures to mitigate the risks connected to the transitory regime being pursued the maximum level of protection of the lagoon atmosphere”.
From the literal tenor of the recalled dispositions, moreover characterized from a substantial open-endedness, is easy to find that I interministerial decree n. 79/2012 have express introduced, in the number of the finalized provisions protect the city and the lagoon of Venice from the connected marine traffic to the passage of the c.d. “great ships”, generic measures of no thoroughfare of the boats beyond the 40,000 tons.
Measures this to apply itself - it is repeated - correlatively to leave of the effective availability of ways alternatives regarding those currently in use, characterizing measures of mitigation of the risk, specifically connected to the transit of such boats, which, for example, the increase of the “distance to which the same ones must maintain one from the other in case navigate in the same sense”.
Last determination this to consider itself therefore operating interinalmente until when the foretold ways alternatives, do not become practically percorribili.
If of species the appealled decree, going to establish that the maximum number of transits in the channel of the Giudecca and the channel of San Marco of the boats beyond the 40,000 tons cannot exceed, for year 2014, the 708 units and prohibiting also for entire, for year 2015, the passage of fleeting ships of advanced tonnage to the 96,000 tons, is set in evident contrast with such normative dictation, considering that it has immediately introduced and put operatively drastic interdittive measures to navigation, without to attend, as prescribed, which put on of a way the alternative, at least in concrete terms assumed, to use afterthe passage of the cruise ships, successively characterized from the Harbour office in the Twisted channel Sant'Angelo, to the not navigable state for boats of such important tonnage and therefore petitioner participations of adaptation of its current capacity.
Participations this to come true in times, to the state, advanced regarding those of operativity of the contested prohibition that they have made reference years 2014/2015.
From this point of view, therefore, the decree under investigation, though emitted with the attempt of giving performance to the contained dispositions of I interministerial decree n. 79/2012, must be considered illegitimate, being assumed in violation of art. the 3 of the same one decree, disciplining the transitory regime of the provisions to adopt to protection of the city of Venice and the surrounding lagoon atmosphere.
With the third moreover which reproposed doglianza, even though with purposes specularly which opposed to those of the recurrent societies, from the Municipal administration, it comes complained, against, the insufficiency of the measures adopted from the Harbour office, turning out denounced the bastardy of the decree in comment for deficiency of preliminary investigation and defect of motivation, since assumed without the advance location and the next appraisal of those environmental risks that the no thoroughfares, contemplated there, would have had to contain.
Of it derives that the censorships formulated in via speculating, but polemicamente opposite from the parts in cause, substantially in the complaint converge of a deficiency preliminary investigation that compromises everyone of the opposite interests, without to meet some consent from the parts in cause, this that would have demanded very more wide weighting.
For said how much, the College finds that the reported doglianze are founded.
They are not, in fact, evincibili, from the tenor of the burdened provision, the motivations and the outcomes preliminarys investigation that have carried the Harbour office of Venice to the determination of the contested no thoroughfares for years 2014/2015; neither, such elements, are rinvenibili for relationem in the ministerial note in date 20 November 2013, also appealled it, with which the Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports has sped up the marine Authority to assume, coherently with own powers, measures of control of the risks connected to the transit of the cruise ships.
Such bastardies, are moreover as well as more obvious with reference to first of the attested prohibition, with which the Harbour office has established that for the year the 2014 maximum number of transits in the channel of the Giudecca and the channel of San Marco of the boats of advanced tonnage to the 40,000 tons, cannot exceed the 708 units, not being able itself to ascertain as such threshold can determine, as auspicious, adequate, meaningful reduction of the risks connected to the transit of such boats.
Risks, to the state, not even qualificabili as not analytically determined, but only presumed, without some punctual location or specific examination.
With regard to it is found that the activity preliminary investigation carried out from the Court has moreover assessed, as already exposed, than the transits effectives in year 2014 they have exceeded, in insignificant way, those consented from the Harbour office, for that the cited suspensory decrees of the Court do not turn out to have determined some substantial incidence in order to safety of the traffic and the safeguard of the lagoon.
For how much over saying, and last, they must be declared the inadmissible, ulterior doglianze proposed against the note of the Ministry of Infrastructures and the Transports in 20 date November 2013 - express characterized in the action appealled in terms of “shipping” - and this in reason of its obvious not precettiva and merely propositiva valence.
Such provision is from to consider lacking in some direct ability lesiva in order to topics in dispute, as relating to internal relationships between the Ministry and the Harbour office as also he is desumibile from the same literal tenor of the action that expresses mere recommendations and invitations, as saying, not having some directed operativity, though then trasfusi in the appealled decree, outside constraints of tightened ottemperanza and for this not in directly executive form.
And in truth said ministerial provision it turns out to be precipuamente oriented to the location of the way alternative to the Channel of the Giudecca and the consequent implementing measures, which for example the review of the harbour town development plan and to the procedures for the insertion of the work in the objective law, leaving to the discrezionalità of the Harbour office the ulterior hypotheses of mitigation of the connected risks the transitory regime.
Discrezionalità that turns out to be exercised, for how much it concerns to the appealled provision, in relation only to some of the aforesaid recommendations.
In consideration of the important bastardies found, the rerun reunited ones - it is restated - go according to received of which in motivation with absorption of every other proposed doglianza, this that could be worth to give back to the involved Administrations, during remake of the powers of own competence, the possibility to discipline the fattispecie ex novo under investigation, against development of all the necessary implementations instructors, waves to reach to a coherent one and realize analysis of the types of risks effectively connected to the passage of the ships beyond the 40,000 tons.
It will be able, consequently, to be reached to a more adequate weighting than all the interests involved private publics and, and therefore to the search of those mainly suitable participations to ask for every expectable danger connected to navigation, also guaranteeing the right one, plus wide, protection of the lagoon atmosphere, the natural artistic heritage and of the city of Venice, safeguarding also the important interests connected to the occupation in the harbour job and to connected the economic induced one to it, topics these still remained lacking in adapted consideration in the entire succession of the up to now emanated provisions.
Taken into consideration the peculiarity of the dealt issues, are recovered justified reasons in order to compensate integrally, between the parts in cause, the expenses and the honoraria of the judgment.
P.Q.M.
The Regional administrative court for Veneto (Section Before) definitively pronouncing on the reunited resources, as in epigraph proposed, partially declares them inadmissible and partially he receives them according to which in motivation and, for the effect, he cancels the decree of the Harbour office of Venice n. 153/2013.
It integrally compensates between the parts in cause the expenses and the honoraria of the judgment.
It orders that sentence anticipates is executed by the administrative authority.
So decided in Venice in the Council Chamber of the day 26 November 2014 with the participation of the magistrates:
- Via Raffaele Paolucci 17r/19r - 16129 Genoa - ITALY
phone: +39.010.2462122, fax: +39.010.2516768, e-mail
VAT number: 03532950106
Press Reg.: nr 33/96 Genoa Court
Editor in chief: Bruno Bellio No part may be reproduced without the express permission of the publisher
Today the Regional administrative court for Veneto, with sentence that we publish below, has cancelled the action of the Harbour office that imposed limitations to the crocieristico traffic in channel of the Giudecca and Basin S. Marco to Venice.
- Via Raffaele Paolucci 17r/19r - 16129 Genoa - ITALY
