CF: Four court appeals pending regarding sale of San Siro to Milan and Inter

A total of four appeals are pending before the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court (TAR) regarding San Siro.

In recent days, as revealed by Calcio e Finanza, the City of Milan officially filed the last of the appeals, which concerns the final stages of the sale of the Giuseppe Meazza stadium and the surrounding areas to Inter and Milan.

The four appeals

The first appeals began as early as 2022, and with several additions, they have since touched on the most recent issues being discussed and voted on at the City Hall.

The first front of the dispute is the appeal filed by Gabriella Bruschi and 66 other citizens before the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy – Milan.

The legal action seeks the annulment of Council Resolution No.1379/2021, with which the Council confirmed the public interest in the proposal put forward by Milan and Inter in July 2019: the demolition of San Siro and the construction of a new multifunctional sports district.

The second appeal, filed by the Gruppo Verde San Siro Association and 52 other appellants, also concerns resolution No.1379/2021, contested for the same reasons: approval of the public interest in the project to demolish the Meazza and build the new complex.

Photo by Marco Luzzani/Getty Images

A further appeal – again by the Gruppo Verde San Siro Association, this time with 99 appellants – is directed against the Council resolution No.324/2025, which defines the guidelines for proceeding with the proposed purchase of the entire ‘Ambito GFU San Siro’ real estate complex, including the current stadium, by Inter and Milan.

A further legal front has opened with the appeal filed against City Council Resolution No.71/2025 , approved on September 29, 2025, which defines the essential elements for the sale of the San Siro real estate complex, including the stadium, classified in the Land Management Plan as a San Siro Major Urban Function.

At the heart of the appeal is the alleged infringement of the prerogatives of a city councillor, who complains that the commission he chairs was unable to express opinions or propose amendments to the text to be sent to the Council. Furthermore, according to the appellant, some of the duly submitted amendments never reached the council chamber for a vote.

The Council’s position is clear: the appeal is inadmissible and unfounded, because the resolution’s approval process was conducted in full compliance with the law, the council regulations, and the principle of councillor participation.