E 'configurable criminal liability of the holder of the conduct of operations recovery of waste produced by others for non-compliance of those requirements (Art. 256, fourth paragraph, Leg. No. 152 of 2006), although the recovery activities is managed directly by the third party. Interesting
Court of Cassation on the activities of waste recovery and identity of the person responsible for any breach of authorization requirements. The Court, focusing on a particular factual context, he said that he who is holder and criminal liability for breach of authorization requirements, even if the management of the activity is actually conducted by a third. The fact
The trial story is very simple. Following trial before the Court, the legal representative of a construction company, holder of an authorization to carry out waste recovery operations, using mobile crushers, issued by the provincial territorial jurisdiction, was acquitted by the breach of ' art. 256, fourth paragraph, Leg. April 3, 2006, No 152.
In particular, the activity recovery of waste was carried out at a construction site of another company, and, in the course of an investigation by the supervisors, was found, first, the breach of communication to the province concerned of the site chosen for the performance of recovery and, secondly, the violation of the provisions concerning the so-called test for leaching, to be performed in the manner required by the Annex to DM 5 February 1998.
The trial court justify the acquittal on the fact that, in fact, the task of managing the recovery of waste, consisting of building demolition waste, was managed directly by the company owner of the shipyard, the company which holds the In fact, it was limited to providing only hire the machine (consisting of a crusher for crushing need of construction waste) together with the operator of the machine that the latter, however, as emerso nel processo, aveva svolto l’attività seguendo esclusivamente le direttive della ditta titolare del cantiere.
Il ricorso
Il P.M. proponeva ricorso per cassazione avverso la sentenza assolutoria ritenendo configurabile un’ipotesi di violazione di legge, sostenendo, in sostanza, che l’esatta interpretazione dell’art. 256, comma quarto, T.U.A. avrebbe dovuto condurre all’affermazione della responsabilità penale dell’imputata.
Ciò che rilevava, infatti, non era la gestione “di fatto” dell’attività di recupero, quanto, piuttosto, la titolarità dell’autorizzazione allo svolgimento delle relative operazioni, spettante the society of which the accused's legal representative was the beneficiary of the decision favor. The decision of the Supreme
The Court accepted the prospect of reaching the annulment of the prosecutor in his favor with reference to the first court for the correct application of the principle of law.
Before examining the motivational path is useful even if a quick clarification to better frame the present case, particularly in light of amendments made to Part IV of THY from the recent Legislative Decree no. 205, 2010.
Under the new policy priorities in waste management provided by art. TUA 179, first, the management rifiuti deve avvenire nel rispetto di una particolare gerarchia:
a) prevenzione;
b) preparazione per il riutilizzo;
c) riciclaggio;
d) recupero di altro tipo, per esempio il recupero di energia;
e) smaltimento.
Le operazioni di recupero, quindi, sono oggi classificate al penultimo posto tra i criteri di priorità, anche il comma sesto dell’art. 179 prevede espressamente che “Nel rispetto della gerarchia del trattamento dei rifiuti le misure dirette al recupero dei rifiuti mediante la preparazione per il riutilizzo, il riciclaggio o ogni altra operazione di recupero di materia sono adottate con priorità rispetto all'uso dei rifiuti come source of energy. "
The "recovery" is then defined by Novell Lett. t) art. 183, first paragraph, THY as "any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfill a particular function or to prepare them to fulfill that function, inside the 'system or the economy in general "and Annex C of Part IV of YOUR back, then, a non-exhaustive list of recovery operations.
The execution of a recovery, then, is now also important for the cessation of waste (184-ter, TUA), as "a waste ceases to be such when it was subjected to a recovery, including recycling and preparation for re-use, and meets the specific criteria" to be adopted in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraph first of the mentioned law. In particular, the new forecast down today (second paragraph) that the recovery operation "can be as simple as checking of waste to see whether they meet the criteria developed pursuant to those conditions."
regard, then, the legal regime applicable to the recovery of waste, the Legislative Decree no. 205 of 2010 has not innovated particularly with respect to legislation previously in force.
These activities, in fact, may be conducted under the simplified procedure provided for in Article. TUA 216, in particular, placed under the "notice of commencement activities," the exercise of the recovery of waste, ninety days of such notification to the provincial territorial jurisdiction.
must, however, be complied with technical standards and specific requirements of Article. 214, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. In this regard, the third paragraph of Article. YOUR 214 provides that the rules, conditions and simplified procedures must ensure that the types or quantities of waste and the procedures and methods of disposal o di recupero siano tali da non costituire un pericolo per la salute dell'uomo e da non recare pregiudizio all'ambiente.
La legge, peraltro, affida ad appositi decreti del Ministro dell'ambiente l’adozione, per ciascun tipo di attività, delle norme, che fissano i tipi e le quantità di rifiuti e le condizioni in base alle quali le attività di recupero di cui all'Allegato C alla parte quarta del T.U.A. sono sottoposte alle procedure semplificate di cui agli artt. 215 e 216. Sino all'adozione dei decreti di cui sopra, relativamente alle attività di recupero, continuano ad applicarsi le disposizioni di cui ai decreti del Ministro dell'ambiente 5 febbraio 1998 (per i rifiuti non pericolosi) e 12 giugno 2002, n. 161 (per hazardous).
In case of violation of the provisions of art. 216, art. 256 YOUR attests, the fourth paragraph, failure to comply with the requirements contained or referred to in the permits and the lack of requirements and conditions required for entries or communications, reducing by half the penalties provided for in the first paragraph, letters a) and b).
summarized the applicable rules, it is easy to understand the option followed by the Supreme Court. Although, in fact, the company which holds the conduct of recovery operations had been limited to providing rental machinery for the crushing of construction waste together with the operator (the situation covered in hot cd charter, which provides for the supply of goods and personnel to its use), remained intact the responsibility of the holder, but will remain responsible for both of the latter Recovery of waste performed by the mobile crusher (device designed for grinding and recovery varies from inert industrial waste), and compliance with the requirements of the authorization.
That statement is fully correct, given the personal nature of authorization to carry a typical management activities (collection, transport, recovery, disposal, trade and brokerage).
This explains why, for example., The Court's legitimacy mean that the holder may delegate the exercise of third parties which are free (see, in terms of: Cass. Pen. , Sec. 3, No. 24723 of 22/06/2007, C., and more, in Ced Cass. 236886; case in which the license holder to pursue the recovery of non-hazardous waste it had delegated the carrying out an unauthorized third party that used materials and equipment owned by the licensee).
(14/02/2011 Criminal Judgement Supreme Court, No 5346)
Source: IPSOA
0 comments:
Post a Comment