In large cities, the line between livability and “movida” is often thin. However, when noise, music, gatherings and degradation become a systematic phenomenon, the issue is no longer just one of good neighborliness: the civil protection of the right to rest and full enjoyment of one’s home comes into play.

In Court of Milan Judgment No. 9566/2025, filed in late 2025, the court deals with an emblematic case: residents who complain of nighttime noise immissions, as well as a situation of degradation of the common parts (condominium hallway invaded by bottles and garbage), linked to the frequentation of a central area of the city. The interest of the pronouncement is concrete and immediate: the municipality was ordered to compensate the residents, despite not being the material author of the noise, due to the administration’s prospective omissive responsibility in managing the phenomenon.

1) The facts: not only noise, but also degradation and safety risk

A very concrete picture emerges from the reconstruction: residents state that they experience a condition of chronic insomnia and fatigue, also affecting their working lives, and describe repeated episodes of accumulation of glasses, bottles and trash left by patrons near the entrance and in the hallway. Incidents of fainting/falls of intoxicated people and difficulty in accessing emergency vehicles are also recalled.

These elements, in practice, matter a great deal: in “movida” lawsuits, the strength of the case often depends on the ability to represent the phenomenon as stable, repeated, documentable (and not as a sporadic episode).

2) Why the ruling is relevant: the municipality can be liable even if it is not the material author of the noise

The central point is simple to explain, but technically dense: the municipality does not directly produce the noise (which arises from patrons and premises), and yet it can be held civilly liable if the claim is based on omissive conduct.

In other words: when there is a legal obligation to prevent the event (or to reduce it within limits compatible with normal tolerability), inaction or insufficient measures can become a source of liability.

For litigation, this changes the angle of attack: it is not necessary to show that “the municipality is making noise,” but that it has not effectively governed a foreseeable and repeated phenomenon, with respect to the powers and duties that the legal system assigns to it.

3) Jurisdiction: when to go to the ordinary court (and not to the TAR)

An important step, also from a strategic perspective, concerns jurisdiction. The municipality objected to the lack of jurisdiction of the ordinary court, but the objection was rejected.

The key lies in the approach to the claim: it is not (only) a question of challenging an administrative act, but of asserting liability for inaction/omission and seeking civil (including compensatory) protection. In such cases, the dispute can be drawn into the sphere of the ordinary courts.

4) The “concrete” obligation of the municipality: supervision and control tools

The judgment recalls the Framework Law on Noise Pollution (L. 447/1995), enhancing its profiles on the supervisory duties of the municipality.

This step serves to “fill” the obligation with content: omissive liability only holds if it is shown that there is a specific legal duty (not a generic duty to “maintain order”). The reference to the noise pollution regulatory framework and related administrative powers makes it possible to delineate, on a case-by-case basis, the perimeter of the entity’s position and to assess whether the conduct engaged in was appropriate.

5) “I issued an order” is not enough: effectiveness, not formality, counts

One of the most useful messages for those working in the real estate/condominium sector is that, in such cases, the assessment does not stop at the presence of acts and measures: the judge looks at the concrete suitability of the measures.

In the reconstruction, the management of permits and the sanction system also appear among the contested profiles: for example, the idea that the administration can (within the limits of the regulatory framework) limit the issuance of new permits in an already saturated area, or provide more incisive sanctions, up to and including revocation in the case of violations, is cited.

On a practical level, it means this: if the phenomenon is structural, we are not just discussing “spot” controls, but the overall governance of the problem and the effectiveness of the tools adopted.

6) The outcome: compensation order in favor of residents

The reconstruction shows that the court handed down a compensatory sentence against the municipality, quantifying the compensation at about 6,500 euros per injured person.

Beyond the amount, which always varies according to the intensity and duration of the immissions and the available evidence, the diriment aspect is the approach: the judgment is not limited to establishing that the nuisance exists, but also assesses whether-faced with a known and repeated phenomenon-the administration has put in place effective and proportionate measures.

7) Document collection: how to (really) build a “movida” case before even going to trial

Those who experience constant nocturnal discomfort tend to recount it with understandable expressions (“we don’t sleep anymore,” “it’s unlivable”), but in any judgment what matters is to transform that discomfort into an ordered, verifiable, and chronologically consistent factual framework. It is exactly on this step that many causes, concretely, are strengthened or weakened.

Effective document collection almost always starts with a principle: reiteration is demonstrated over time. That is why it is useful for the condominium or individual residents to keep records of reports, requested interventions, and responses obtained (or not obtained). In practice, they make a difference: complaints, PECs, requests for action to the local police, any minutes, communications with the administrator and the condominium. It is not a matter of “piling up paperwork,” but of creating a sequence that makes it possible to clearly read when the phenomenon began, how often it recurs, and whether (and how) the authorities intervened.

Alongside the reports, anything that documents the materiality of the incidents and their impact on the building assumes importance: photographs and videos (always with date and time), reports on the condition of the common parts, requests and invoices for extraordinary cleaning, any estimates or interventions needed to restore the hallway or accesses. In cases where profiles of degradation are also contested (bottles, trash, clutter), these elements are not marginal: they help to represent the phenomenon as overall detrimental to the normal enjoyment of the building.

A further level-often decisive when an entity’s responsibility is invoked- concerns the “administrative” dimension of the context: how many vending activities insist on the same street, what authorizations appear to have been issued, whether there are any measures taken and with what outcomes. In this perspective, when necessary, access to records (or otherwise the collection of public data) may be useful to understand and document the density of licenses and the presence of any repeat offenses or disputes.

Finally, the technical side: phonometric surveys can be an important tool, but they should be thought of as part of an overall evidentiary framework. They are generally most persuasive when they are consistent with other evidence (reports, interventions, testimony) and when they describe a phenomenon that is not isolated, but representative of actual trends over time.

In summary, one thing should be kept in mind: this ruling is not “just” a decision on noise, but a pronouncement in which – based on the factual framework and the role attributed to the entity – the municipality was ordered to pay compensation. And this shows how decisive, even before the legal approach, is the ability to document the daily reality of the disturbance in a structured and expendable way in court.

Conclusions

Milan Trib. Ruling No. 9566/2025 is a useful ruling because it clarifies a point that, in practice, makes a difference: “movida” is not automatically an unavoidable fact, and the public body can be civilly liable when the management of the phenomenon is ineffective with respect to duties and powers of supervision and regulation.

For condominium owners and landlords, the message is equally clear: these litigations cannot be improvised. What is needed is a technical and documentary approach, capable of demonstrating the reiteration of the nuisance, its impact on the home, and-when the entity is called into question-the link with inaction or inadequacy of the measures taken.