Fifteen detailed pages detailing the entire story involving the Municipality of Uras and explaining the reasons that led the judges of the Council of State to uphold the appeal presented by six of the seven councilors seeking the annulment of the resolution by which Mayor Samuele Fenu had convened the Municipal Council to replace one of the resigning councilors , despite there not being a quorum.

In ruling number 03726, signed by judges Michele Corradino (presiding), Giovanni Pescatore, Giovanni Tulumello (drafting), Antonio Massimo Marra, and Raffaello Scarpato, the matter is recalled starting on September 30, 2025, when seven of the twelve councilors had submitted their resignations. "On the same day, the Municipality of Uras notified both the Prefecture and the Regional Department of Local Authorities of the submission of the resignations," the document states. "It also noted that one of the resignations—that of councilor Salvatore Tuveri—contained a reference to health reasons and therefore expressed its intention to proceed with the replacement of the resigning councilor."

Meanwhile, the Region has not adopted any formal measures. The City Council has therefore ordered the replacement, validating the elected representative. "The resolution was forwarded to the Region, which, in a note dated November 4, 2025," the measure states, "declared that it does not have powers to review the legitimacy of local government actions and therefore invited any interested parties to refer any complaints to the administrative judge."

The resigning members then filed an appeal with the Regional Administrative Court, "arguing—as the judges wrote—that the simultaneous resignations of the majority of the councilors constitute an objective case of dissolution of the council body, with the consequent preclusion of any replacement procedure."

The Regional Administrative Court declared the appeal inadmissible due to a lack of interest, "holding that the potential annulment of the resolution would not have the desired dissolution effect on the City Council, given that the power of dissolution rests with the Region." In their ruling, the judges wrote that "the assertion that the appellants lack an interest in challenging the subrogation resolution is erroneous. The interest invoked is specifically directed at the removal of the act that interrupted the legal sequence of the dissolution proceedings initiated at their instigation."