Angari. Illegal works for an illegal building on the agricultural outskirts of Angri, we return to the courtroom in front of the Salerno TAR. building that’s adele montella’s daughter carloReference name in the English criminal scene, and wife of entrepreneur Dominic ChiavazzoSurname “Mimmo ‘a Satriana”, A story that has nothing to do with the others that have made it into the news, but which has made it a case of the owner’s kinship with Carlo Montella and because that property has been the subject of various judicial measures in different places.
This time the lawyers have filed a petition Lorenzo Lens And Gaetano Frankvilla In the name of Adele Montella against the provision of the municipality of Angri she requests the annulment after the suspension of the provision of 2 July 2021. This provision may not have been formally notified to the appellant, who only became aware of it on 30 March this year, on the basis of another decision of the municipality. In fact, officials of the Piazza Crocifiso body had conveyed to the property owner the reasons impeding his waiver request, ascertaining alleged non-compliance of the 2020 demolition injunction for illegal works, acquisition of relative well and area Sediment to the legacy of the municipality to do. At the same time, Angari Municipality ordered to impose a fine of 20 thousand euros. The appeal submitted by the owner’s lawyers is also against the denial of apology by the municipal administration.
The story is very complex and relates to a different stage of the administrative process that led to the 2021 conviction. In fact, an appeal had already been submitted in the name of an appeal to the facts relating to this building in the rural area of Angri. The owner of the property which was dismissed in April 2021. In the Tar decision two years ago, the judges underlined that the disputed misuse related to the construction of, in the absence of a building permit, a building used as a dwelling with a related adjunct, on two storeys, Even if completed in only one. At that time, the appellant in brief complained that the demolition order could not be validly enforced against the owner, as the building would have already been subjected to confiscation order since 2015 as a preventive measure and hence it would not be more Was its availability. Earlier also the municipality had opposed it. The Section of Tarr, Salerno stated that “the fact that an illegal asset has been subjected to criminal confiscation is extrinsic to the repressive-remedial measure and does not affect its validity”, agreeing with the authority.
We now return to the Court on the basis of another complaint, separate from the first, by the Municipality to set forth its reasons for persuasion. (sdn)
© Breeding Reserved.
