In its ruling of TAR in Brescia today I suggest you study (TAR Brescia, No 211/2010), which can be downloaded for free by registering at the site Legal nature of the administrative judge Lombard tackles the issue of relations between the EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment - IEA - IPPC . It does so from a historical, a useful way to understand where we are, and where.
In a nutshell, the TAR Brescia (211/2010) has sottolineato che nell’impostazione originaria del 1996 l’impatto ambientale di un’opera o di un impianto era misurato esclusivamente attraverso la procedura di VIA , previo esame dell’assoggettabilità qualora il progetto non rientrasse nei casi di valutazione d’impatto ambientale codificati.
Alla decisione sulla VIA si collegavano poi le singole autorizzazioni necessarie per la realizzazione dell’opera o il funzionamento dell’impianto.
Con la successiva introduzione dell’ autorizzazione integrata ambientale tutte queste autorizzazioni sono state raggruppate in un giudizio complessivo e ad ampio raggio: nell’AIA, among others, have come together:
• the authorization of emissions into the atmosphere of the DPR 203/1988;
• authorize the discharge of Legislative. 152/1999;
• the authorization of the establishment and modification of disposal or recovery of waste art. 27 of Legislative Decree no. 22/1997 and
• the licensing of disposal or recovery of waste art. 28 of the Decree. 22/1997.
Formally, the EIA process, which must precede the release of the AIA and affects the content, remained autonomous. But
it is clear that the scale of assessments conducted in relation to the integrated environmental authorization is reflected in the EIA process, which necessarily are relevant studies carried out for the release of the AIA.
L ' environmental impact of a work or an installation it could not be fully framed without taking into account the technical insights that lead to the release of the AIA and the concomitant formulation of limits for the production of pollutants.
In short: the same documents are examined twice, for the purpose of the EIA and the IEA release.
So there is a feedback on the evaluation of the AIA and being subject to the same EIA process in the sense that the first, though chronologically later, defines the purpose of the latter.
In short: you can not decide on EIA without knowing in advance the technical equipment of the AIA, meaning that not only technical analysis but also the requirements (or the patterns of prescription) which limit and direct the content of the project.
In this case, the Board, dismissing the appeal, said that the fact that the EIA and the IEA now has a tendency to form a unique appeal does not prevent the separate its acts as if the technical equipment is common are different legal effects of final measures.
the EIA is issued a ruling on the location of the work or the system: those who oppose the location choice has an interest in challenging its decision independently, thereby also an inhibitory effect on the aid.
On the other hand, the ' appeal of documents relating to the EIA must still be supervised by the AIA mpugnazione release, because the object of the EIA is defined by the requirements set forth together with AIA, and therefore the favorable decision on the latter laying down the conditions under which the environmental impact is acceptable. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the case of structural changes or additions that relate to existing plants, as the procedure for obtaining the aid must be taken into account the best available technology and are therefore preferred that evaluations of efficiency compared to the reviews abstract location of the activity.
If you liked this article, subscribe to RSS or enter your email that you find in the box below and confirm your subscription by responding to the email you receive on your e-mail: You will receive all updates free of legal direct to your inbox
0 comments:
Post a Comment