The Emilia Romagna TAR, with an order dated 22 February, ordered the postponement of the discussion of the merits of the lawsuit brought by a gaming hall against the Municipality of Fidenza (PR) due to the order through which the Manager of the Municipality of Fidenza - One Stop Shop Productive Activities has ordered the definitive closure of the business.
“With presidential decree no. 151 of 19 July 2023, this Court accepted the request for provisional precautionary measures, thus reasoning «considering that, due to the effects that would be determined in the medium time, a situation of extreme gravity and urgency emerges such as to require the suspension of the effectiveness of the contested act; Considering that, naturally, any ruling on the procedural and merit aspects of the appeal remains unprejudiced, to be postponed to the collegial hearing";
– with collegial ordinance no. 166 of 31 August 2023, this Court accepted the precautionary request, consolidating the effects of the presidential decree, deeming it to exist «the periculum in mora resulting from the serious prejudice that the appellant would suffer from the immediate execution of the closure order» and set the public hearing for 21 February 2024 for the discussion of the merits, also considering that the definition of the dispute in question could not ignore that of the pending appeal, concerning the acts required with respect to the contested closure order;
Having taken note of the request for postponement formulated by the Emilia-Romagna Region, with filing dated 19 January 2024 (which the appellant company agreed to on 22 January 2024, while the Municipality of Fidenza limited itself to not opposing this eventuality), motivated due to the fact that in the proceedings pending before the Council of State the hearing to discuss the merits has been set for 27 March 2024;
Considering the existence, in this case, of an exceptional case in the presence of which the postponement of the discussion of the case pursuant to art. 73, paragraph 1 up to, code proc. admin., given that the definition of the dispute which is the subject of the appeal proceedings, concerning the acts required with respect to the closure order contested here, is likely to affect the outcomes of the present proceedings, as already noted in the precautionary proceedings”.
