Environmental Crimes and Economic Difficulties: Ruling 24718/2025 and the Priority Obligation of Environmental Protection

Environmental protection represents a crucial challenge for local authorities, often grappling with financial shortages. The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 24718 of June 12, 2025 (filed on July 7, 2025), has provided a fundamental clarification. The decision, which involved R. I. as the defendant, rejected the appeal against the ruling of the Court of Catanzaro, consolidating a jurisprudential trend that places the safeguarding of the environment and health above economic difficulties.

The Regulatory Framework: Legislative Decree 152/2006 and Environmental Crimes

Legislative Decree of April 3, 2006, no. 152 (Consolidated Environmental Act) imposes a strict framework for the management of waste and wastewater. Articles 137, paragraph 1, and 256 of Legislative Decree 152/2006 respectively penalize the unauthorized discharge of industrial wastewater and the illicit disposal of special waste. These offenses protect primary legal interests such as the healthiness of the environment and the health of citizens, imposing precise obligations to prevent damage to the ecosystem.

Ruling 24718/2025: Economic Difficulties Do Not Justify Pollution

The core of the ruling concerns the argument that the lack of financial resources cannot be invoked as a cause for justification or for the unenforceability of the illicit conduct. The local authority defendant had argued that it could not build treatment plants due to a lack of funds. The Court of Cassation rejected this argument with a clear maxim:

The impossibility for a local authority to carry out the construction of treatment plants due to a lack of necessary financial resources does not constitute a cause for justification, nor for the unenforceability of the conduct, in the face of the offenses of unauthorized discharge of industrial wastewater and illicit disposal of special waste, as referred to in Articles 137, paragraph 1, and 256 of Legislative Decree of April 3, 2006, no. 152. This is because the authority must prioritize the allocation of such resources to meet the needs connected to citizens' health and the protection of natural resources.

This ruling is of extreme importance. The Court has established that economic difficulties cannot justify violations that compromise fundamental assets such as health and the environment. The principle is rooted in Article 32 of the Italian Constitution, which enshrines the right to health. Public authorities have a primary duty to allocate their resources to the safeguarding of these assets. The unenforceability of conduct applies only in extreme situations, not to a mere lack of funds, which falls under management challenges. The Court of Cassation, referencing previous rulings, reiterated that environmental protection cannot be subordinated to budgetary considerations.

Implications and Responsibilities of Local Authorities

Ruling 24718/2025 necessitates a profound reflection on the planning and allocation of resources for local authorities. The lack of funds can no longer be an excuse for postponing essential interventions. The Court suggests a proactive approach, including:

• Seeking alternative funding (European, PPP).
• Long-term programming of infrastructural interventions.
• Adoption of stringent preventive and control measures.

Criminal liability also arises from the omission of due interventions. The decision reinforces the idea that public health and natural resources are non-negotiable values.

Conclusions: A Warning for the Protection of Our Territory

Ruling no. 24718 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a significant warning. It forcefully reaffirms the principle that the protection of the environment and citizens' health is a categorical imperative, not to be sacrificed for economic difficulties. In the face of serious offenses such as unauthorized discharge and illicit disposal, the law admits no justifications based on a lack of resources. This trend consolidates the protection of our natural assets and reminds us that environmental sustainability is a binding legal duty for present and future well-being.