By Judgment No. 106/2026, the Court of Auditors – Jurisdictional Section for Lombardy ruled on one of the most significant urban regeneration cases of recent years, excluding the administrative liability of certain officials of the Municipality of Milan involved in the criminal proceedings relating to the Park Towers development.
The Public Prosecutor before the Court of Auditors alleged that the officials had incorrectly classified part of the project as building refurbsihment through demolition and reconstruction, rather than as new construction, thereby resulting—in the Prosecutor’s view—in a lower construction contribution and, consequently, financial loss to the public administration.
The judgment comes at a time of increasing scrutiny over the proper scope of administrative liability and represents a significant reassurance for the activity of public authorities.
On the merits, the Court dismissed the claim on the grounds that gross negligence had not been established, placing particular emphasis on the complexity of the applicable legislative and case law framework.
Particularly noteworthy is the section in which the Court addresses the debate concerning the concept of building renovation.
While referring to the line of case law according to which demolition and reconstruction should maintain a substantive connection with the pre-existing building, the Court held that gross negligence cannot be inferred merely from adherence to a particular judicial interpretation, especially where such interpretation is not unequivocally supported by the wording of Article 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 380/2001 and is contradicted by other judicial authorities adopting different interpretative approaches.
In this background, the judgment reflects a principle of particular importance for public authorities: where the applicable legislative framework is not unequivocal and different judicial interpretations coexist, the adoption of a reasonably sustainable interpretation cannot, in itself, give rise to liability for damage to the public finances.
The judgment therefore outlines a more clearly defined balance between the need for public oversight and the protection of administrative action, particularly in sectors such as urban planning, which are characterised by continuous legislative and technical developments.