The outdoor seating regulations have been the subject of controversy for months. Now they're before the Regional Administrative Court (TAR): five operators in the historic center, assisted by lawyer Giovanni Cau, have filed an appeal against the Municipality of Oristano, requesting "the annulment of the City Council resolution of September 11, 2025, which approved the outdoor seating regulations. The annulment of the regulations, specifically Article 5 (paragraph 4) and Article 19, and of all related documents."
In his detailed appeal, attorney Cau highlights that the companies La Piazza, Spicchio Pizza, Ittica Aeden, Aemme srl, and Kalispera, in an effort to expand their offerings while also fostering the development of the center, have over the years requested and obtained permits from the SUAP (Italian Environmental Protection Agency) for removable outdoor structures. All have invested significant sums to develop those outdoor areas that the municipal regulations define as "type 2" (space delimited by a platform and railing) and prohibit in the historic center. Article 19 also grants two years to comply with the regulations.
"These provisions have a devastating impact on businesses," the appeal states, "who, despite having the necessary permits, are forced to completely remove their structures, nullifying investments and reducing seating capacity, with consequences not only for their own businesses but also for the community, given the feared desertification of the city center."
Even for Aeden, which has no seating inside, it would mean having to close its doors permanently. For all of them, this would mean a reduction in business and would inevitably lead to a reduction in staff. The appeal alleges "unlawful provisions under various aspects," specifically highlighting their violation of the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and the protection of legitimate expectations.
"The absolute ban on type 2 outdoor seating in the historic center is an extreme and unjustified measure," it states. "Even if the Municipality's goal were to ensure urban decorum, this is already protected by landscape regulations, the Ministerial Decree for Culture, and the historic center master plan, which all businesses comply with. And it is disproportionate because the sacrifice imposed on private individuals is excessive compared to the abstract and unproven public benefit it would provide."
According to the lawyer, the Municipality made an a priori decision, and if one were to assume that the choice was made to protect the areas of greatest historical value, "the procedure adopted by the Municipality would still be flawed because, as established by the Cultural Heritage Code, public areas of historical and artistic value can be identified following consultation with the Superintendency, and this step does not appear to have been taken."
Finally, the national law on markets and competition has specifically delegated the government to regulate removable structures. "The national legislator's tendency is to simplify and identify outdoor seating as a means of fostering the economic vitality of historic centers," the appeal states. "The Municipality of Oristano is going in the opposite direction. This choice appears anachronistic and flawed by an excess of power." Hence the request to annul the acts.
