Introduction
On January 19, 2024, the Criminal Cassation Court, Section III, issued judgment no. 9461, addressing the consequences of non-compliance with the mayor’s order to remove abandoned waste. This article analyzes the details of the judgment and its implications for those responsible for waste abandonment and the recipients of the mayoral removal orders.
Obligations for Waste Removal
Responsibility of the Abandoner
In waste disposal matters, the obligation to remove waste primarily falls on the person responsible for the abandonment as a direct consequence of their actions. The law imposes penalties on anyone who does not comply with the mayor’s order to remove waste, as established by Article 255, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree 152/2006.
Jointly Liable Parties
The obligation to remove waste also extends to those jointly liable, i.e., those who share responsibility with the principal perpetrator of the abandonment, provided that intent or negligence is demonstrated. These individuals must intervene to remove the waste and are subject to the same penalties in the event of non-compliance.
Recipients of the Mayor’s Order
Recipients of the mayor’s removal order are obligated to comply with the mayor’s directive and face legal consequences for non-compliance. They must either challenge the order to obtain its annulment or provide the criminal court with significant evidence for the possible disapplication of the order.
The Case Examined by the Criminal Cassation Court
Context of the Judgment
The Cassation Court’s judgment pertains to a case where the mayor of a municipality ordered the legal representative of an LLC to remove hazardous and non-hazardous waste present at the company’s warehouse. The defendant was penalized with two months of arrest under Article 255, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree 152/2006.
Defendant’s Defense
The defendant’s defense argued that the court failed to consider the company’s declaration of bankruptcy, which occurred before the notification of the mayor’s order, thus rendering compliance impossible as the company’s assets were under the control of the bankruptcy trustee. The trustee had also challenged the order before the administrative court, further asserting the defendant’s lack of responsibility for the contested facts.
Court’s Decision
The Criminal Cassation Court clarified that Article 255, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree 152/2006 penalizes anyone who fails to comply with the mayor’s order. The Court confirmed that the legal representative of the company, despite the bankruptcy, was responsible for the waste removal since the company retains its legal personality and remains the owner of its assets.
Conclusions
Judgment no. 9461 of the Criminal Cassation Court reaffirms the importance of adhering to mayoral waste removal orders and clarifies the responsibilities of the various parties involved. The company’s bankruptcy does not exempt the duty to remove waste, transferring this obligation to the bankruptcy trustee when the activity generating the waste occurred within the property of the bankrupt company. Lawyers dealing with environmental and bankruptcy law must consider these significant implications to adequately advise their clients.