Abstract
The paper analyses the relationship between the silence-assent mechanism and the sensitive interests, in particular the environmental ones. The subject is relevant due to a legislative contrast. As a matter of fact, the art. 20, par. 1, l. no. 241 of 1990 (as it was reformed in 2005) excludes the application of the silence-assent mechanism in case of sensitive interests. On the contrary, art. 13, par. 1, l. no. 394 of 1991, allows its application in the proceedings concerning protected areas and parks. The Council of State had different opinions on the relationship between these two rules, causing contrasting case law. The Plenary Assembly clarifies its opinion in the judgement no. 17 of 2016, arguing that art. 13, par. 1, l. no. 394 of 1991, has been remaining in force because of its speciality. Consequently, the Plenary Assembly allows the application of the silence-assent mechanism in environmental proceedings inside the protected areas. Nevertheless, this judgement is in contrast with the opinion of the Council of State no. 1640 of 2016 about the art. 17-bis, l. no. 241 of 1990, which allows the silence-assent mechanism between public bodies also in case of environmental interests. The administrative court states that art. 17-bis is legitimate subject to the condition that this rule does not apply to private subjects if sensitive public interests are involved in the administrative proceeding. The conflict between the two decisions is patent and it causes significant interpretative problems and imbalances, which are analysed in the paper. Furthermore, the Administrative Tribunal of Lazio has recently forbidden the application of the silence-assent mechanism in a protected area, adopting a different opinion from the judgement given by the Plenary Assembly.