- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-383/25, Keritaly: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia – Sezione staccata di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 11 June 2025 – Keritaly SpA v Provincia di Mantova and Others
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0383
62025CN0383
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2025/4581
(Case C-383/25, Keritaly)
(C/2025/4581)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Keritaly SpA
Defendants: Provincia di Mantova, Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente (ARPA) – Lombardia, Agenzia di Tutela della Salute (ATS) Val Padana, Comune di Gonzaga
Question referred
Must Article 20(2) of Directive 2010/75/EU (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) be interpreted as precluding a national rule (such as that in force in Italy pursuant to Article 29-novies, paragraph 1, of decreto legislativo 152/2006 (Legislative Decree No 152/2006)), which provides that, following the communication by which the operator informs the competent authority of a planned change to its installation – which it classifies as non-substantial – where the competent authority has not responded after a period of 60 days has elapsed the change is, in any event, tacitly authorised, even if it subsequently appears to be a substantial change?
—
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4581/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—