Analysis of Judgment No. 32117 of 2024: Differences Between the Offence of Failure to Remediate and Non-compliance with a Mayoral Order

Judgment No. 32117 of May 29, 2024, filed on August 7, 2024, represents a significant intervention by the Court of Cassation on environmental crimes. In this case, the distinction was discussed between the offence of failure to remediate, provided for by Article 452-terdecies of the Criminal Code, and the misdemeanor of non-compliance with a mayoral order for waste removal, governed by Article 255, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree of April 3, 2006, No. 152. Understanding these differences is crucial for correctly framing criminal liability in waste management matters.

The Offence of Failure to Remediate

The offence of failure to remediate is established in the presence of conduct that has polluting potential. In other words, there must be a situation where the failure to intervene to remediate an area can actually cause environmental damage. This offence aims to protect the environment and public health, imposing on individuals and companies the obligation to intervene when faced with situations that could compromise the ecosystem.

The Misdemeanor of Non-compliance

Conversely, the misdemeanor of non-compliance with a mayoral order for waste removal arises when waste is abandoned, which also includes uncontrolled dumping. In this case, the conduct is considered unlawful not so much for its polluting potential in itself, but for the fact that an order obligating waste removal was ignored. It is a violation more linked to the disregard of administrative provisions rather than to an active and harmful behavior.

Crimes against the environment - Offence of failure to remediate - Misdemeanor of non-compliance with a mayoral order for waste removal - Differences - Indication. Regarding crimes against the environment, the offence of failure to remediate, provided for by Article 452-terdecies of the Criminal Code, differs from the misdemeanor of non-compliance with a mayoral order for waste removal, referred to in Article 255, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree of April 3, 2006, No. 152, in that the former presupposes conduct with polluting potential, while the latter requires the abandonment of waste, including uncontrolled dumping and discharge into waters, from which no event potentially capable of polluting arises.

Conclusions

This judgment offers an important key to understanding criminal liability in waste management matters. The differences between the offence of failure to remediate and the misdemeanor of non-compliance with a mayoral order outline a complex but necessary regulatory framework to ensure environmental protection. It is essential that all stakeholders involved in waste management are aware of their responsibilities to avoid sanctions and contribute to a healthier environment.