Air Pollution and Purification Plants: Cassation Court Ruling 24717 of 2025 on Environmental Non-Derogability

Environmental protection is one of the fundamental pillars of our legal system, a constitutional value of primary importance that translates into a complex system of rules and responsibilities. In this context, the recent ruling no. 24717 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation offers significant clarification, reaffirming the non-derogability of environmental regulations even in situations of urgency in awarding essential public services, such as water purification. A decision that strengthens the principle that the health of our planet and its inhabitants cannot be sacrificed even in the name of administrative speed.

The judicial case involved a private individual, Mr. B. S., awarded a public purification service through a summary urgency procedure, pursuant to the then-in-force art. 163 of Legislative Decree 18 April 2006, no. 50 (now replaced by art. 140 of Legislative Decree 31 March 2023, no. 36, but with similar principles). The crucial issue was the management of a municipal plant lacking the necessary air emission permit. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the urgency in awarding the service could justify the absence of such a permit, thereby precluding the commission of the offense.

Environmental Offense and Legislative Decree 152/2006

The core of the matter lies in the application of art. 279 of Legislative Decree 3 April 2006, no. 152, known as the Consolidated Environmental Act (TUA). This provision penalizes conduct that results in air emissions without the required authorization or in violation of its conditions. Air pollution is a far-reaching problem, with direct repercussions on human health and ecosystems, which is why the regulations are particularly stringent.

In the case at hand, Mr. B. S. was held liable for the offense precisely for managing the purification plant without the required authorization. His defense was based on the argument that the summary urgency award of the service, an exceptional procedure intended to address pressing situations, should have excluded or mitigated his liability, making immediate compliance with all environmental regulations impracticable.

Administrative Urgency vs. Constitutional Environmental Protection

The Court of Cassation, Third Criminal Section, with ruling no. 24717 of 2025, rejected this argument, upholding the conviction. The principle expressed is of fundamental importance and deserves careful consideration:

The conduct of a private party, awarded the public purification service through a summary urgency procedure pursuant to art. 163 of Legislative Decree 18 April 2006, no. 50, who manages a municipal plant in the absence of the required air emission permit, constitutes the offense provided for by art. 279 of Legislative Decree 3 April 2006, no. 152, as no exigency, including that of urgency in public contracts, allows for derogations from the regulations established for the protection of the environment, which have absolute and primary constitutional value. Therefore, the special cause for non-punishability provided for by art. 191 of Legislative Decree no. 152 of 2006 is not applicable.

This maxim crystallizes a key concept: environmental protection admits no exceptions. Even when public administration finds itself needing to award a service through urgent procedures, such urgency can never justify the violation of regulations established to safeguard the environment. The Supreme Court recalled the