Declares it unfounded and therefore rejects the appeal of the Milan Prosecutor’s Office against the provisions of the Judicial Review which in August annulled the arrests of Alessandro Scandurra (house arrest) and Andrea Bezziccheri (imprisonment), which were triggered in the course of a maximal investigation into urban planning and also for hypothetical crimes of corruption. Yesterday at the Supreme Court Deputy Attorney General Cristina Marzagalli reiterated the request she had formulated in the last few days and in writing regarding the CEO of Coima, Manfredi Catella (pictured). The Supreme Court’s decision is expected in the next few hours.
At the hearing in Rome yesterday, all the appeals were discussed, three by the Milan prosecutor and three by the defense. Therefore, the decision will rest with Catella, Bluestone’s owner, and architect and former member of the City’s Landscape Commission. Also about the former board member of the Palazzo Marino, Giancarlo Tancredi, about the former president of the Commission, Giuseppe Marinoni, and about the manager Federico Pella. The final three appealed against a Judicial Review decision that admitted them – despite reclassifying the actions from “contrary to official duties” to “improper” and with “sale of public functions” – corruption charges and replacing house arrest with disqualification measures. Meanwhile, Scandurra’s defense attorney, lawyer Giacomo Lughini, asked that the prosecutor’s demands against his client be declared unacceptable.
A few days ago the deputy prosecutor at the Supreme Court wrote in his speech, recalling the discussion regarding Catella’s position, that he basically agreed with the Milan Supervisory Court, which in turn rejected the approach and decision of the Prosecutor’s Office and the investigating judge. Marzagalli asked for the prosecutor’s appeal to be rejected. Therefore, the representative of the public prosecutor at the Supreme Court accepted the defense request. Referring to the relationship between Coima’s CEO and Scandurra, then a member of the Landscape Commission, and allegations of corruption, he argued that the Review Board “had the principles of good governance” demonstrated by jurisprudence, “believing that it must be shown that the performance of acts contrary to official duties was the cause of granting utilities to public officials”. We therefore adhere to the opinion of judge Freedom who considered “that the findings in the documents do not indicate the formation, or operation of a corrupt agreement between Scandurra and Catella as CEO of Coima, since it cannot be said that the payment of invoices by” the company to the architect “was due to a corrupt agreement rather than related to the professional activities actually carried out”.
