Mitigation for diligent repentance in environmental crimes: analysis of Cassation no. 12514/2025

The Third Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation has revisited the issue of the special effect mitigation for diligent repentance in environmental crimes. With decision no. 12514 of 2025, the judges partially annulled – with referral – the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Rome of March 27, 2024, clarifying the scope of application of art. 452-decies of the Italian Criminal Code. The ruling offers valuable guidance for businesses, defence lawyers, and operators in the sector, who are interested in understanding when an offender can effectively obtain the sentence reduction provided for by the law.

The reference regulatory framework

Art. 452-decies of the Italian Criminal Code provides for a "privileged" mitigating circumstance for those who, after committing an environmental crime, take action to prevent further consequences of the offense or to remove its effects. This provision, introduced in 2015 to implement Directive 2008/99/EC, complements the general mitigation for repentance (art. 62 no. 6 of the Italian Criminal Code), but offers greater favour, with a reduction of the penalty of up to two-thirds.

The debated issue concerns the substantive and temporal requirements of the remedial intervention. In particular: when is the action taken by the defendant truly capable of "deserving" the mitigation?

The position of the Cassation in judgment 12514/2025

In the context of environmental crimes, the special effect mitigation for diligent repentance, referred to in art. 452-decies of the Criminal Code, which can be granted in favour of those who take action to prevent the criminal activity from leading to further consequences, requires the implementation of interventions that provide concrete help to the environment, not pre-typified, but inferable from specific cases, culminating in an effective and stable interruption of the consequences of the committed crime, as the mere activation of the offender, lacking any effect, is not sufficient for this purpose. (In the reasoning, the Court specified that the remedial action, even if it can be carried out some time after the commission of the crime, must, in any case, be initiated before the start of the trial, as the judge is called upon to decide on events already realized and not "in progress").

The particularly dense summary highlights two key aspects:

• Effectiveness and concreteness: the defendant must carry out technical or managerial activities that provide concrete help to the environment. For example, remediation, permanent safety measures, waste disposal, or ecosystem restoration.
• Timeliness: the intervention, although it can occur after the crime has been committed, must be initiated before the opening of the trial. This prevents the judge from ruling on mere future promises.

The Court thus rejected the defence's argument of B. D., accused of illegal waste management, who had limited himself to producing a remediation plan that was never actually initiated. In such cases, the "effective and stable interruption" of the criminal consequences required by art. 452-decies of the Italian Criminal Code is lacking.

Practical implications for businesses and defence

The principle expressed requires those operating in high-risk sectors – chemical industry, construction, waste management – to plan environmental compliance strategies from the outset. In the event of a criminal charge, the company must:

• promptly engage a specialized company for remediation;
• document every phase of the interventions (contracts, analyses, ARPA reports);
• demonstrate the achieved result: reduction of emissions, removal of residues, soil restoration;
• conclude the operations or, at least, initiate them irreversibly before the opening hearing.

Only in this way will it be possible to obtain a significant sentence reduction – up to two-thirds – and, sometimes, to avoid accessory precautionary measures such as confiscation or suspension of productive activity (art. 452-quinquies of the Italian Criminal Code).

Conclusions

Judgment no. 12514/2025 confirms the Cassation's rigorous approach in evaluating environmental diligent repentance: it is not enough to "do something"; it is necessary to solve the problem in a verifiable and timely manner. For businesses, this translates into the obligation to intervene immediately, with professionalism and transparency, if they wish to benefit from legislative leniency. Legal professionals are called upon to guide their clients through remediation processes and the preparation of adequate documentary evidence, avoiding reliance on future promises that, as the Court reminds us, do not convince the judge.