ADVERTISING 'AND PUBLIC AFFISIONI: OK TO IMPLIED CONSENT, BUT NOT FOR THE USE OF PUBLIC LAND IN THE SUMMER OF THE FAIR With No Decision 2000 filed April 9, 2010 the State Council said that the installation of advertising and enforcement of advertising are subject to obtaining the prior authorization, possibly through the mechanism of silent assent , But can not cover the subsequent and necessary permission to use public land.
The issue stems from an action brought by a limited company against the City of Milan. The Tar
of Lombardy had, in fact, dismissed the appeals on the order of the same Srl - prepared by the City Council - Removal of advertising installations allegedly abusive.
The Council of State notes that Article 6 of the Regulation approved by resolution of the City of Milan in 1995, governing the application of municipal advertising and bill-posting, in providing for the installation within of a settlement of advertising and execution of advertising are subject, inter alia, the achievement of the prior - and to that end is necessary to submit a special application, in respect of which the council is responsible for providing within 40 days (or thirty days in the case of advertising agency staff), which results in unnecessary due to the effects of their silent consent - refers not to the issue of granting of public land that forms the basis, but rather to request prior authorization of advertising installations.
Justices of the Palazzo Spada show that, in this case, the institution of administrative silence does not apply: firstly, because the refusal decision was adopted by the City Council within thirty days of the term under the Regulation. Second, because other measures challenged by Srl, even if for just a hypothesis, that he had been able to form a tacit consent, were measures of rejection of applications for grant and should be regarded as "exclusions" or at least as a measure of silent formed self-help measures, such as were duly and promptly challenged, being based on specific grounds of conflict between the installation request equipment and timely forecasts of advertising regulations. The judges point out, however, not only as these provisions have not been challenged, but have not even been contested by the municipality subsequent warnings addressed to the appellant company for the removal of advertising systems for which it was declared to be unfair to reject of the original application for permit / license.
For the Council of State there is nothing which can be derived from the reasonableness, even before the merits of the argument of the opt-out training on requests for installation of advertising installations, advanced by the appellant Srl.
The decision of the judges administrative shows, finally, as any conduct undertaken by the local authority appealed against persons who were in the same situation of the appellant Srl (of improper maintenance of advertising installations), behaviors which, however, was not given any evidence, do not constitute symptom of illegitimate administrative action complained about unequal treatment, can not in any way give relief, if only by way of comparison, to a situation of illegality or unlawfulness.
can not be considered in fact, contend the courts of the State Council, contradictory administrative action of the City of Milan, despite the denial of 'decision granting or approved, has demanded payment of the sums for the occupation of public land or tax on advertising, this is not a valid assumption at all decision granting / of authorization. "
