The paper aims to examine the relationship between the decarbonisation targets set by the European Union through the EU’s “Green Deal” and the EU’s latest nuclear energy strategies to assess whether such programmes converge toward a common climate objective or, conversely, follow divergent regulatory and policy trajectories. Drawing on an analysis of EU legal sources and soft law instruments, the study seeks to investigate recent initiatives related to nuclear energy, including those related to safety, waste management, and its potential role in achieving climate goals. While acknowledging that nuclear power is not at the heart of the Green Deal, the paper aims to highlight the main peculiarities of this energy source by analysing its legal and administrative implications.

By judgment No. 2309 of 17 March 2021, the Council of State has further confirmed – overcoming the idea that the term for the conclusion of ARERA’s sanctioning procedure is merely ordinary – the peremptory nature of such term, therefore its overrun affects the challenged sanctioning measure, implying that it is unlawful. Indeed, the provision of a procedural time frame, to be determined by the Authority on a case-by-case basis, shall ensure that the time of sanction ascertainment is close to that of its punishment, thus meaning that the undue time lapse of the administrative action implies the unlawfulness of the sanction measure.

With judgment no. 1274 of July 3, 2020, the Regional Administrative Court of Milan has clarified that the selection, by public notice, either of public or private entities interested in providing mobility services in sharing with electric devices, does not constitute a public service activity if the Municipality has not expressed the political aim of satisfying the need of its administrators to move around the city through the use of hoverboards, segways, electric scooters and monowheels; this is due to the lack of the fundamental moment of "political engagement", which is an indefectible prerequisite to be able to integrate the figure of public service.

By decision no. 2539 of 21 April 2020, the Council of State clarified that Article 84, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree no. 18/2020 shall be understood as meaning that each of the parties has the right to request a postponement of the hearing to a date subsequent to the end of the emergency phase in order to discuss the dispute orally, when the Court deems that the requested postponement does not compromise the right of the other party to a reasonable duration of the trial and where the dispute is not so simple that it does not require any discussion, since it is possible, in the juridical deed procedure, with the necessary caution, to give priority to procedural economy requirements.