The plaintiffs, two companies working in area classified as “intense human activity” next to a residential area, acted against the Municipalty of Margarita (Province of Cuneo, Piemonte, Italy) to appeal the Municipality decision modifying the acoustic classification plan.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision and alleged that time foresaw the inclusion of the area in class V, corresponding to the "predominantly industrial areas", namely those "affected by industrial sites and shortage of housing "within the meaning of Table of PM Decree of 14 November 1997. As a result, the plaintiff grounded his appeal on the fact that the municipal council exceeded its power and that there was a failure in the assumption and motivation and a manifest injustice, misrepresentation and lack of investigation. The applicant explained that since the company bought a vast area around its own property in order for others not to suffer of noise pollution, the area itself is now to be labelled not as mixed between different types of use, but just as “an industrial zone”.  It added that it does not make sense to prevent the company to work in its area for “future possible damages” which are not responsive to the company’s current use only "and future potential" of the area, and therefore this cannot constitute a criterion of acoustic classification.

The claimant concluded that the acoustic classification must avoid fragmentation effects and fragmentation of the territory which would make it impossible to work on, having to tend, on the contrary, to the homogenization of the contiguous areas, hence the need to homogenize the cadaster of the land.

The Administrative Tribunal instead, rejected this reasoning and held that the plaintiff cannot claim that the temporal continuity in the use of cadastral maps in their industrial lot since in the meantime their uses become incompatible with the destination of the whole area the urban plan once reformulated. Moreover, there is no possibility for the company to use the whole area for industrial purposes just because it has the property as this would suggest a single acoustic classification of the whole land compendium.
For these reasons, the Court rejected all of the reasoning and the appeal.