Confiscation of Land in Case of Illegal Landfill: The Court of Cassation (Judgment No. 30034/2025) and the Limits of the Criminal Conviction Decree

The fight against environmental crimes is an absolute priority for the protection of our territory and public health. In this context, Italian legislation provides for severe penalties for those who commit illicit conduct, such as the creation or management of illegal landfills. Among the most incisive measures is the mandatory confiscation of the area used for such purposes. But what happens when an attempt is made to apply this measure through a simplified procedure like the criminal conviction decree? The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 30034 of 2025, has provided a fundamental clarification that deserves our attention.

The Central Issue: Mandatory Confiscation and Criminal Conviction Decree

The crime of creating or managing an illegal landfill is governed by Article 256, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree of April 3, 2006, No. 152 (the "Consolidated Environmental Act"). This provision mandates the compulsory confiscation of the affected area in case of conviction or plea bargaining, provided that the area is owned by the perpetrator or an accomplice to the crime. This is a particularly severe measure, aimed at preventing further offenses and restoring the state of the premises as much as possible.

The point of contention, examined by the Supreme Court, concerns the compatibility of such confiscation with the criminal conviction decree, a procedural tool that allows for a rapid resolution of criminal proceedings without a trial, limited to offenses for which a monetary penalty is applicable, even as a substitute for a custodial sentence. The Court of Cassation, ruling on the case involving defendant M. L. P., rejected the possibility of ordering mandatory confiscation through this instrument.

In matters of waste management, the mandatory confiscation of the area used as an illegal landfill, which is owned by the perpetrator or an accomplice to the crime, as provided for by Article 256, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree of April 3, 2006, No. 152, in the event of a conviction or plea bargain, cannot be ordered by a criminal conviction decree, as it is not contemplated by law and is not equivalent to the confiscation referred to in Article 240, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code. (Case occurring prior to the innovations introduced by Decree-Law of August 8, 2025, No. 116, converted, with amendments, by Law of October 3, 2026, No. 147).

This principle expressed by the Court of Cassation is of fundamental importance. The Court clarifies that the mandatory confiscation under Article 256, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 152/2006 cannot be applied through a criminal conviction decree. The reasoning is twofold: on the one hand, the law does not expressly contemplate it among the measures applicable through this instrument; on the other hand, it is not equivalent to the general confiscation provided for by Article 240, paragraph two, of the Criminal Code. The latter, although also mandatory for certain assets (e.g., items whose possession is prohibited), has a different nature and legal regime compared to specific environmental confiscation, which requires more in-depth assessment and is expressly linked to a "conviction or plea bargain judgment."

Reasons of the Supreme Court: Distinction Between Types of Confiscation

The decision of the Third Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation, with rapporteur A. M. A., is based on a rigorous interpretation of procedural and substantive norms. The criminal conviction decree, governed by Article 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is conceived as a tool for swift justice, allowing for the application of monetary penalties and, in some cases, substitute penalties. However, its scope of application is limited to what is expressly provided by law.

Confiscation under Article 240 of the Criminal Code (generally applicable to assets that constitute the price, product, or profit of the crime, or that were used to commit it) may, under certain circumstances, be ordered by a criminal decree. However, the mandatory environmental confiscation under Article 256, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 152/2006 has peculiar characteristics that make it incompatible with the simplified nature of the criminal decree:

• It is a measure specifically linked to environmental crimes and the ownership of the area.
• The provision that establishes it explicitly mentions "conviction or plea bargain judgment," indicating a more structured procedural context.
• It requires a precise determination of the ownership of the area and its connection to the crime, which is not easily reconciled with the summary nature of the summary proceeding.

The Supreme Court, citing consistent precedents (such as Judgment No. 26548 of 2008), has therefore reiterated that to order such an incisive measure with specific prerequisites, a decision must be made within the framework of an ordinary trial or a plea bargain, where defense guarantees and factual assessment are fully elaborated.

Practical Implications and Environmental Protection

This ruling has significant practical implications. For Public Prosecutors, it means that if the objective is to obtain the mandatory confiscation of the area used as an illegal landfill, they cannot resort to a criminal conviction decree but must opt for an ordinary proceeding or a plea bargain. For defendants and their lawyers, the judgment offers clarity on the procedural limits in applying one of the most severe penalties in environmental matters.

The decision of the Court of Cassation, while concerning a technical-procedural aspect, underscores the judicial system's attention to the correct application of laws, even when dealing with crimes of great social impact such as environmental offenses. The protection of our environment, in fact, cannot be separated from a justice system that is both effective and respectful of the forms and guarantees provided by the legal order.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 30034 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the jurisprudence on environmental criminal law. It reiterates that the mandatory confiscation of the area used as an illegal landfill, provided for by Article 256, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 152/2006, is a measure that, due to its specificity and incisiveness, requires a more in-depth procedural process than that offered by the criminal conviction decree. This principle reinforces the need for careful evaluation of procedural options by legal professionals and confirms the importance of relying on expert professionals to address the complexities of environmental and criminal law.