This essay offers a first systematic reconstruction of the law of quantum technologies, a field of scholarship that became firmly established on the European regulatory agenda in 2025 with the United Nations proclamation of the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology and the adoption, by the European Commission, of the Quantum Europe Strategy. The central thesis is that the regulation of quantum technologies requires not only a new European legislative act, but a multi-level reconstruction of the interplay between existing rules, technical standards and industrial policy instruments: the Quantum Act, announced for 2026, should function not as a self-contained sectoral code, but as a coordinating instrument between security, innovation, certification, and technological sovereignty. The contribution distinguishes the areas in which existing rules require interpretative adaptation (GDPR, eIDAS 2, Reg. EU 2021/821, NIS2, Dir. EU 2024/2853) from those still lacking organic systematisation (integrated certification, QKD/PQC coordination, patent regime of quantum protocols), and locates them within the broader framework of the administrative law of technological innovation.

Opposition to infrastructure projects is a complex issue involving local resistance, environmental concerns, and national interests. Movements like NIMBY and BANANA highlight the tension between local communities’ interests and national policies, especially in energy and waste management. This study analyses three dynamics developed by leading scholars: the scapegoat mechanism, the tyranny of the status quo, and the pressure valve. The NIMBY phenomenon is often used to shift blame onto protesting communities, causing systemic inertia. The study advocates for a more inclusive interpretation of vicinitas, allowing collective entities to access justice regardless of geographic location. Recognising and deconstructing these dynamics is in fact crucial for restoring democratic participation and preventing administrative governance from becoming structurally immobilised.

The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the emerging domain of Organoid Intelligence (OI) represent two of the most advanced and promising frontiers of modern science and technology. AI, which originated in the 1950s, has rapidly evolved and influenced various professional and social sectors. However, it has not yet achieved a universally accepted definition due to its multidisciplinary nature and continuous transformation. In parallel, OI raises complex ethical and legal issues, making a clear and shared definition crucial. This paper explores these issues, highlighting the importance of clear definitions and unanimous consensus for both Artificial Intelligence and Organoid Intelligence. Only through shared consensus is it possible to develop regulations that promote technological innovation within a framework of social and ethical responsibility, addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by these advanced technologies.