Derrick still prevails over Spinelli on the container depot at Genoa airport
In all likelihood, Derrick can continue to occupy the 24 thousand square meters of the container depot managed near the Genoa Airport until the expiry of his concession, scheduled for the end of the year.
This can be seen from today’s ruling by the Council of State which considered an appeal by the Spinelli group to be inadmissible. The latter asked for the annulment of the sentence with which the TAR in 2019 rejected the appeal against the concession and extensions of the area in use by Derrick, a company headed by Contrepeair led by Filippo Dellepiane and Bolzaneto Container Terminal (joint venture between the Finsea of the Negri family and The Investments of Giulio Schenone).
The object of the dispute is an area that the Airport has in concession by the Port System Authority (its main shareholder) and which in 2013, following a “memorandum of understanding” between local authorities and interested parties, was granted Derrick to compensate for the renunciation of some extra-port spaces necessary for the construction sites of the third pass. In 2019 Spinelli challenged that “exceptional,” temporary “and non-competitive leave, and the extensions (the last of which is the one that sets the deadline at the end of 2019). The TAR, however, as anticipated, declared the appeal – today the Council of State reconstructs – “inadmissible due to delay with reference to the original concession” while “with reference to the extensions, the appeal was rejected because the concession (or sub-concession) made by Aeroporti of Genoa to Derrick was not subject to public evidence constraints, since it is a business activity “.
The appeal, as mentioned, however, was declared inadmissible, although during the Derrick case he produced in deeds the further extension (to the whole of 2022) obtained by Aeroporto in April 2021. Indeed, precisely for this reason, a mockery for Spinelli .
The Council of State, in fact, highlighted how “it does not appear that the definitive acts of this further pro have been with an independent appeal at first instance” challenged by Spinelli and, therefore, “the appeal (concerning the previous extensions , ed) would be useless for the appellant, given that the disputed sub-concession would in any case be effective as a result of the further extension, as this further extension in court cannot be challenged “.
Hence the verdict of inadmissibility, with the further highlighting, as regards the inadmissibility raised by Derrick, who “failed (by Spinelli, ed) the demonstration of the need to use are further than those on which Spinelli obtained the concession. With this, there was no manifestation of interest in proposing the appeal at first instance “.
SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLETTER FREE DAILY SHIPPING ITALY