Press Room

In its judgment no. 6027 of 10 July 2025, the Italian Council of State rejected the appeal filed by the Municipalities of Salizzole, Nogara, and Sanguinetto against the authorization granted to BMH21 S.r.l. for the construction and operation of a biomethane production plant located in the Municipality of Concamarise.
BMH21 S.r.l. was assisted by the Law and Tax Firm CBA, with a team led by Partner Fabrizio Magrì, supported by Senior Associate Barbara Orlando and Associate Massimino Crisci.
The Fourth Chamber of the Council of State addressed a significant interpretative issue concerning the discipline of the so-called “conference of services”, a structured inter-administrative coordination procedure provided for under Italian law: the issue of standing to participate, and in particular, the identification of the entities entitled to take part in the single authorization procedure for biomethane plants powered by renewable energy sources.
The case arose from objections raised by neighbouring municipalities regarding their exclusion from the procedure convened to authorize a biomethane production plant entirely located within the boundaries of another local authority – the Municipality of Concamarise. According to the appellants, the location of the facility would have considerable effects on their own territories, particularly in terms of traffic and environmental impact, and this should have granted them the right to participate in the procedure.
The Council of State dismissed these claims, reaffirming a well-established – though frequently contested – principle: participation in administrative procedures, even in the structured format of a coordination procedure, requires a legally qualified interest and cannot be based solely on geographical proximity or general, indirect impacts.
The judgment offers a systematic reconstruction of the relevant legal framework, starting with Article 12(4) of Legislative Decree no. 387/2003, which provides for the necessary participation, in the procedure aimed at issuing the single authorization, of “all interested administrations.” However, due to the vagueness of this phrase, the Court deemed it necessary to interpret it in light of the general law on administrative procedures. In particular, Article 7 of Law no. 241/1990 – explicitly referenced by Article 14(5) of the same law – limits participation to: those directly affected by the final decision, public authorities expressly required by law to be involved, and counterinterested parties (i.e., those who may suffer a direct and specific prejudice).
The ruling is clear on this point: “The appellant municipalities do not fall within any of these categories (…) they do not possess technical competences relating to the public interests at stake, nor do they have institutional responsibilities deriving from territorial jurisdiction over the plant, which is entirely located within the Municipality of Concamarise.”
The Court underlined that the alleged impacts – increased intermunicipal traffic and odour perception – amount to mere material effects, lacking the legal specificity required to establish a differentiated legal position. “The municipalities concerned are only subject to indirect consequences of the new industrial activity, such as increased traffic on roads connecting to their territory and odours emanating from the plant; however, these effects do not place them in a differentiated legal position justifying a right to participate in the coordination procedure”
These effects may be perceptible in practice, but they do not give rise to a subjective legal position sufficient to grant standing in the authorization process.
The principle affirmed by the judgment aligns with case law aimed at ensuring certainty and efficiency in administrative proceedings – especially in complex sectors such as renewable energy, where the multitude of interests involved can risk prolonging and complicating the procedural dialogue.
Accordingly, the Council of State reconstructed the coordination procedure as a legal venue for procedural cooperation among entities holding a legitimate title to participate, aimed at balancing the primary public interests at stake in the procedure.
In this context, judgment no. 6027/2025 offers a clear interpretation of the term “interested administration” (amministrazione interessata), not as an open or extendable concept, but as a legally defined category, grounded in a direct relationship between institutional competences and the public interests at stake in the procedure.