Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Historical Pollution Under Scrutiny in the Italian Criminal Case Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Historical Pollution

  • 374 Accesses

Abstract

In the absence, at least until recently, of a comprehensive system for environmental protection in Italy, the case law has mainly reverted to the offenses against public safety foreseen by the Italian Criminal Code, in order to meet the protection needs arising in the context of cases of historical pollution. In particular, the offenses of Unnominated disaster and of Water poisoning , provided for, respectively, by Articles 434 and 439 of the Italian Criminal Code, appear to be the most recurring. With regard to the Testo Unico Ambiente (Legislative Decree of 3 April 2006, n. 152) the most significant issues arising within the case law and concerning historical pollution relate to the misdemeanor under Article 257 (Failure in remediation proceedings). In the following sections, cases identified either as leading cases or as in any event particularly representative of the phenomenon will be briefly set out. The analysis conducted on the case law brings to light a considerable number of questions pertaining to various topics in criminal law: from the culpability principle to succession in duty of care and the selection criteria for punishable conduct. The description of leading cases is followed by a short analysis of five hypothetical scenarios, related in various ways to the phenomenon of historical contamination and characterized by an increasing level of harmfulness. To each scenario we try to give possible solutions, based on the case law examined and the statutory framework. As every situation typified within each scenario reflects a mere abstract hypothesis, whose evaluation under Italian criminal law could change according to the concrete facts that may actually occur, the principles listed in Sects. 2.1–2.5 have to be considered as general guidelines and not as specific directions.

Sects. 1.1–1.5 were drafted by Benedetta Venturato, while Sects. 1.6–2.5 were drafted by Eliana Greco.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The decisions of the Court of Venice and of the Court of Appeal of Venice are published on www.petrolchimico.it, while the Italian Supreme Court’s decision is published on Foro it., 2007, II, p. 550 ff.

  2. 2.

    This notion of “disaster,” according to which for the crime to be committed it is not necessary that the relevant conduct and its effects be closed in time nor that the disaster has a violent origin, has also been affirmed by the Italian Constitutional Court (see Corte Costituzionale. 327/2008, on Giur. cost., 2008, p. 3529 ff.) and has been widely followed by subsequent case law (with the exception of Corte d’Appello Venezia). See, among others, Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 23 February 2015, n. 7941 (the Eternit case), on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 24 February 2015; Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 5 May 2009, n. 18974, on Ced Rv 243992; Cassazione penale,, sez. IV, 17 May 2006, n. 4675 (the Porto Marghera case), on Foro it., 2007, II, pp. 550 ff.; Cassazione penale, sez. V, 7 December 2006, n. 40330, on Ced Rv. 236294.

  3. 3.

    On the possibility of making groundwater contamination fall within the scope of the offense of Water poisoning under Art. 439 of the Italian Criminal Code, see Cassazione penale, sez. I, 14 October 2005, n. 41983, on Ced Rv. 232874; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 27 May 1997, n. 7170, on Cass. pen., 1998, pp. 1624 ff.; conversely, Corte d’Assise di Chieti, 19 December 2014 (ud.), n. 2, p. 80, on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 9 February 2015.

  4. 4.

    See also Corte d’Assise di Chieti, 19 December 2014 (ud.), n. 2, pp. 73–75; Tribunale di Cremona, 18 July 2014, Judge Salvini, p. 357 (unpublished).

  5. 5.

    See also Cassazione penale, sez. V, 26 April 2005, n. 23465, on Cass. pen., 2007, p. 615 ff.; Corte d’Assise di Chieti, 19 December 2014 (ud.), n. 2, p. 75; dissenting, Tribunale di Cremona, 18 July 2014, Judge Salvini, p. 329.

  6. 6.

    This legal principle is restated by the Italian Supreme Court Judgment closing the Porto Marghera Petrochemical case and is also referred to within the Porto Tolle case (Tribunale di Rovigo, 22 September 2014, Pres. Angeletti, ric. Arrighi, pp. 41–42, on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 16 October 2014) and within the Vado Ligure case (Tribunale di Savona, 11 March 2014, Judge Giorgi, p. 36, on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 16 October 2014), with respect to the Disaster offense. In particular, in the latter case the judge stated that the managers of a thermo-electrical plant should adjust its emissions to below threshold limit values in accordance with the precautionary principle. For a more detailed analysis of the precautionary principle, see Chap. 4, Sect. 6.2 of the present volume.

  7. 7.

    See n. 5 above.

  8. 8.

    See n. 6 above.

  9. 9.

    See n. 4 above.

  10. 10.

    Statute of limitation issues in relation to the disaster offense issues were also dealt with in the Eternit case described in Sect. 1.5 of this chapter.

  11. 11.

    The decision is published on Dejure.

  12. 12.

    See Tribunale della Spezia, 6 June 2011, n. 10007, p. 58.

  13. 13.

    See n. 3 above.

  14. 14.

    The decision is currently unpublished.

  15. 15.

    This notion clearly contrasts with the relevant previous case law . See n. 3 above.

  16. 16.

    See n. 5 above.

  17. 17.

    See, ex multis, Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 21 November 2014, n. 11128, on Riml, 2015, p. 1139 ff.; Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 27 February 2014, n. 18933, on Ced Rv. 262139; Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 24 May 2012, n. 33311, on Riml, 2013, p. 297 ff.; Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 22 March 2012, n. 24997, on Foro it., 2012, II, 517 ff.

  18. 18.

    On the use of epidemiology in criminal law, see, also for the relevant references, Chap. 4, Sect. 6.1 of the present volume.

  19. 19.

    The conclusion was based on the theory that the second paragraph of Art. 434 of the Italian Criminal Code (which punishes whoever engages in conduct aimed at causing a disaster, when the disaster subsequently occurs) would provide for an autonomous offense and not just for an aggravating factor of the basic Disaster offense provided by Para. 1 of the same provision. On this issue, see also Tribunale di Avellino, 15 June 2013, Judge Riccardi, 8, on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 15 November 2013. Dissenting, Tribunale della Spezia, 6 June 2011, n. 10007, 28. See Chap. 6, Sect. 6.4.

  20. 20.

    See also, in the same case, Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 23 February 2014, n. 7941, pp. 78–79.

  21. 21.

    The legal principle affirmed by the Italian Supreme Court in the Eternit case with respect to the statute of limitations found confirmation also in the Pozzo di Gotto case (see Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 21 July 2014, n. 32170; G.U.P. Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto, 11 March 2013, Judge Adamo: both decisions are published on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 9 December 2014). This is a minor case of historical pollution, very similar to the Eternit case in terms of the key features of the relevant factual background and structure of the indictment: the charges, in fact, related to the diffusion of asbestos while carrying out an industrial activity which, many years later, resulted in contamination and a health disaster . The case is worth mentioning—albeit only briefly—as it affirmed the above-described principles on the statute of limitations, since the preliminary hearing phase of the proceedings affirmed them in the Eternit case even before the Italian Supreme Court. Another case where these principles were affirmed is the Bussi sul Tirino case described in Sect. 1.2 (see Corte d’Assise di Chieti, 19 December 2014 (ud.), n. 2, p. 185). Conversely, in the Porto Tolle case (see Tribunale di Rovigo, 31 March 2014 (dep. 22 September 2014), Pres. Angeletti, ric. Arrighi et al., p. 72) the Court applied the legal principles on the statute of limitations affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the Eternit case.

  22. 22.

    This decision is published on Cassazione penale , 2011, pp. 4405 ff.; it is also published on Rivista Giuridica dell’Ambiente, 2011, pp. 809 ff.

  23. 23.

    This misdemeanor is described by case law as “a free-form—causal or purely causally oriented—offense with event of damage,” where remediation would be an “objective condition of punishment with a negative content.” This structure influences the mens rea requirements, especially with reference to knowledge of statutory criminal law and to the subjective perception of negative value inherent to polluting conduct. On this topic, among others, see Cassazione penale, sez. III, 29 November 2006, n. 9794, on DeJure.

  24. 24.

    On this issue see also Cassazione penale, sez. III, 2 July 2010, n. 35774, on DeJure. In this case “the trial Court of Udine declared M.C. guilty of the offense under Legislative Decree April 3, 2006, No. 152, Art. 257 because, as director of the company Cromo Friuli […], had failed in cleaning up procedures […]. The defendant proposes further appeal […] and stressed […] that Mr. B.B., the previous director of the company, was the person who had caused the contamination […]. In fact, the defendant was appointed manager only on 14 June 2005, about a year after the alleged offense.” Nevertheless, the Court convicted him because “the contamination had not been completed during the years that preceded the appointment of M.C. as director of the company, but it was protracted until February 2008, when the periodic monitoring found dangerous substances exceeding the threshold limit values.” The trial Court also found that the polluting effects “would have been related to responsibility of the defendant‚ even if the thesis of the defense had been correct: according to this thesis‚ it would not be a new chromium spill over the production process, but a runoff accumulated in the basement during the previous years and operated by rainwater or by rising groundwater. Even in this case, the current release of hexavalent chromium is related to a still active source of contamination located within the plant of Cromo Friuli […]. In other words, the trial judge considered plausible that the contamination coming from inside the plant has not been terminated before Mr. M. took the position of director, but it was protracted until the last exceeding threshold limit values, occurred in February 2008. Therefore, the misdemeanor was attributable also to the wrongful conduct of the applicant, who had negligently failed to delete the active, contaminant source at its plant.” On these topics see also: Cassazione penale, sez. III, 29 November 2006, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 14 March 2007, n. 26479; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 30 May 2007, n. 28525; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 11 October 2007, n. 40191; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 15 December 2010, n. 11498; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 17 January 2012, n. 17817; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 22 January 2013, n. 19962 (all decisions can be found on Dejure).

  25. 25.

    Conversely, among others, Cassazione penale, sez. III, 9 July 2007, n. 26479, on Amb. e Svil., 2007, pp. 852 ff..

  26. 26.

    Cassazione penale, sez. III, 16 March 2011, cit. In particular, Art. 245 (Intervention and notification obligations by persons not responsible for potential contamination) states as follows: “The procedures for the interventions of securing, remediation , and environmental restoration covered by this title can still be activated by non-responsible parties […].”

  27. 27.

    Even though Art. 242 imposes the obligation to report historical contamination existing on the site also upon nonresponsible people who have detected it, case law considers that “in formal terms, the ‘obligation to communicate’ for the ‘involved but not responsible’ person actually resides in Article 245 and not in Article 242.”

  28. 28.

    Cassazione penale, sez. III, 16 March 2011, cit.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Some examples can be found in: Cassazione penale, sez. III, 16 March 2011, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 2 July 2010, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 29 November 2006, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 14 March 2007, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 30 May 2007, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 11 October 2007, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 15 December 2010, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 17 January 2012, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 22 January 2013, cit.

  32. 32.

    See Sect. 1.6 above for further analysis of this topic.

  33. 33.

    See Sect. 1.6 above.

  34. 34.

    Consistently, among others, Cassazione penale, sez. III, 9 July 2007, n. 26479, cit.

  35. 35.

    See Sect. 2.1 above.

  36. 36.

    See Sect. 2.4 below.

  37. 37.

    On this topic, Cassazione penale, sez. I, 14 October 2005, n. 41983, on Ced Rv. 232874, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. III, 27 May 1997, n. 7170, on Cass. pen., 1998, cit.; Corte d’Assise di Chieti, 19 December 2014, cit. This issue is analyzed in Sects. 1.1 and 1.2 above.

  38. 38.

    Italian Corte Costituzionale, decision No. 327/2008, cit. On this topic see also: Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 7 December 2006, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 5 May 2009, cit.; Tribunale di Savona, 11 March 2014 (Tirreno Power case), cit., p. 18; Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 17 May 2006 (the Porto Marghera case), cit. On this subject, see Sects. 1.1–1.5 above.

  39. 39.

    On this topic, see Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 23 February 2015, n. 7941, cit.

  40. 40.

    See Sect. 1.6 above.

  41. 41.

    Corte d'Appello di Venezia 15 December 2004; on this topic see also: Corte d'Assise di Chieti, 19 December 2014, cit.; Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 23 February 2015, cit.

  42. 42.

    Para. 2 punishes the crime of Death or injury as a consequence of poisoning .

  43. 43.

    Corte d’Assise di Chieti, 19 December 2014, cit., p. 70.

  44. 44.

    Ibid. In particular: “The law does not incriminate the conduct of those who use toxic substances and introduce them into the water for human consumption, but the conduct of the person who produces a poisoning , which is the final effect of the conduct” (this “final effect” consists in making the water dangerous for consumers).

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    Ibid.

  47. 47.

    See Sect. 2.4 above.

  48. 48.

    See Sect. 2.4 above.

  49. 49.

    Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 23 February 2015, n. 7941, cit.

  50. 50.

    See Sects. 1.1–1.5 and 2.3 above (on this subject: Cassazione penale sez. IV, 7 December 2006, cit.; Cassazione penale sez. IV, 5 May 2009, cit.; Tribunale di Savona, 11 March 2014 [Tirreno Power case], cit., p. 18; Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 17 May 2006 [Porto Marghera case], cit.).

  51. 51.

    The most helpful case on this subject is Porto Marghera case, cit. (see Sect. 1.1 above).

  52. 52.

    Tribunale di Venezia, 29 May 2002, p. 171.

  53. 53.

    Tribunale di Venezia, 29 May 2002, cit.

  54. 54.

    Tribunale di Venezia, 29 May 2002, cit.

References

  • Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto, G. U. P. (2013). 11 March 2013, Judge Adamo, on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 9 December 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 27 May 1997, n. 7170, on Cass. pen., 1998, pp. 1624 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. V, 26 April 2005, n. 23465, on Cass. pen., 2007, pp. 615 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. I, 14 October 2005, n. 41983, on Ced Rv. 232874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 17 May 2006, n. 4675 (Porto Marghera), on Foro it., 2007, II, pp. 550 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 29 November 2006, n. 9794, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, Sez. V, 7 December 2006, n. 40330, on Ced Rv. 236294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 14 March 2007, n. 26479, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 30 May 2007, n. 28525, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 9 luglio 2007, n. 26479, in Amb. e Svil., 2007, pp. 852 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 11 October 2007, n. 40191, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corte Costituzionale, 30 July 2008, n. 327, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 5 May 2009, n. 18974, on Ced Rv 243992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 2 July 2010, n. 35774, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 15 December 2010, n. 11498, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 16 March 2011, n. 18503, on Cass. pen., 2011, pp. 4405 ff., on Rivista Giuridica dell’Ambiente, 2011, pp. 809 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 17 January 2012, n. 17817, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 22 March 2012, n. 24997, on Foro it., 2012, II, pp. 517 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 24 May 2012, n. 33311, on Riml, 2013, pp. 297 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. III, 22 January 2013, n. 19962, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 27 February 2014, n. 18933, on Ced Rv. 262139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 21 July 2014, n. 32170, on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 9 December 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale, sez. IV, 21 November 2014, n. 11128, on Riml, 2015, pp. 1139 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassazione penale sez. IV, 23 February 2015, n. 7941 (Eternit), on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 24 February 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corte d’Assise di Chieti, 19 December 2014 (ud.), on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 9 February 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corte d'appello di Venezia, 15 Decemebr 2004, on www.petrolchimico.it

  • Tribunale della Spezia, 6 June 2011, n. 10007, on DeJure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunale di Avellino, 15 June 2013, Judge Riccardi, 8, on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 15 November 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunale di Savona, 11 March 2014, Judge Giorgi (Vado Ligure), on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, on-line, 16 October 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunale di Savona, 18 July 2014, Judge Salvini (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunale di Rovigo, 22 September 2014, Pres. Angeletti, ric. Arrighi, on Dir. pen. contemporaneo, online, 16 October 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunale di Venezia, 29 May 2002, on www.petrolchimico.it

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

    Benedetta Venturato & Eliana Greco

Authors
  1. Benedetta Venturato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eliana Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benedetta Venturato .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Univ Cattolica - Sede di Piacenza , Milano, Italy

    Francesco Centonze

  2. Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Seconda Università di Napoli , Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Italy

    Stefano Manacorda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Venturato, B., Greco, E. (2017). Historical Pollution Under Scrutiny in the Italian Criminal Case Law. In: Centonze, F., Manacorda, S. (eds) Historical Pollution. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56937-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56937-6_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56936-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56937-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation