Hostages of the "malamovida", which tools for citizens?

Having to limit ourselves to a list of the measures that can be adopted, we should resign ourselves to including measures such as the contingent and urgent ordinance specific to noise pollution pursuant to art. 9 law 447/95, or the ordinances issued pursuant to art. 9 of the TULPS (TU Law of Public Security referred to in rdn 773/1931), or even those issued for the violation of art. 64 of Legislative Decree no. 59/2010, entitled "administration of food and beverages". But beyond the normative datum considered in and of itself, it is easy to realize the circumstance that on the administrative "strictu sensu" considered, the instruments of protection are very limited, and even if adopted in the individual cases that have occurred, nevertheless, they would seem having proved to be poorly efficient in governing the phenomenon as they are only suitable for the production of temporary effects, and therefore, and for this very reason, incapable of making changes to the current legislation by only suspending its application.

It is not who really does not see the legal inconsistency of the nature of a potential intervention in this sense which, moreover, the Municipal Body itself is called to revoke when the state of danger ceases. But if, after all, the Public Administration seems to have its "hands" tied due to the little incident nature of its power to intervene, then what tools would citizens have at their disposal to contrast such a vulgar phenomenon? Can they think about taking a lawsuit? Against who? Against the Municipality to obtain the condemnation to take the measures best deemed useful to solve the problem? Probably not, because even if the intent were to be successful, then, upon the outcome, the administration could follow up on the conviction only through the issuance of those measures which, in various ways, and for the aforementioned reasons, would not have incidental force . At least not in terms of structural management of the problem.

In other words: apart from the fact that the citizen, in order to defend himself in the right way, would be called to anticipate the costs of a judgment often of a certain duration, if even the entity that owns the road from which the reported entries come, for example, were to be condemned to the adoption of suitable measures to stop said entries, however, that condemnation would have value and significance in the only single situation reported.

The truth seems to be one and only one and leaps to everyone's eyes: the absence of conscious and structural legislative policies, adequate and consistent with the needs of the territories too often left to their fate due to incapacity and/or contextual lack of strength intervener, probably, of the administrative and police bodies. A synergistic contribution is undoubtedly needed between legal practitioners and public administration bodies, and all citizens, to try to make up for the innumerable regulatory gaps which, despite the regulatory hyper-activity that has always characterized the country, we are still forced to suffer. It is necessary to find solutions that are as satisfactory and useful as possible for all interested parties, who, unquestionably, must find the correct measure of protection in their right to health and rest. These latter needs must necessarily find a privileged protection above the playful needs of the night population and the economic interests of certain commercial operators in the sector, often (with due exceptions of course) too unscrupulous in the management of "polluting" circumstances.

The watchword therefore must be only the one aimed at identifying ad hoc legislation which gives Administrations and Law Enforcement Forces the power to intervene with immediate and definitive effect in contrasting the "bad nightlife" phenomenon, perhaps through the drafting of a specific criminal law.

Josephine Di Salvatore

(Lawyer – Nuoro)