According to this decision, the tacit acceptance rule can be considered legitimately operative only for requests of non-substantial modifications of the Integrated Environmental Authorizations (I.E.A.). Instead, the variations that could directly affect environmental parameters cannot be accepted outside an express provision by the competent Administration. The variations concerning storage, recovery and disposal of waste, due to their close connection with the waste management activity, fall within the sub- stantial modifications and therefore they cannot be tacitly authorized. These principles have been formulated by the judges in order to declare the criminal responsibility of a company administrator, in charge of waste management, who has exceeded the previously authorized limit of waste treatment, without having received an express act of modification of the I.E.A by the competent administration. This comment aims to enlighten how the judgment oversteps the limits of the incidental judicial review on the administrative acts’ legitimacy admitted in criminal judgement. In this way, the court ignores the necessity to protect the administrative discretion, thus also allowing a substantial enlargement of the alleged offenses’ typicality.
Il regime del silenzio assenso può ritenersi legittimamente operante solo con riferimento alle richieste di modifica non sostanziale del contenuto delle autorizzazioni integrate ambientali, mentre le varianti che incidono direttamente su parametri ambientali non possono ritenersi assentite se non a seguito di espresso provvedimento da parte dell’Amministrazione competente. Le variazioni aventi per oggetto la quantità di rifiuti trattati da parte dell’impresa che si occupa di stoccaggio, recupero e smaltimento di rifiuti, attendendo all’attività stessa di gestione dei rifiuti, incidono sulla sostanza dell’autorizzazione integrata, non potendo perciò ritenersi tacitamente autorizzate.
Lavatelli, M. (2019). Variazioni dell’autorizzazione integrata ambientale e silenzio assenso: condizioni di “compatibilità” al vaglio della Cassazione penale. Nota a sent. CASS. SEZ. III PEN. 9 gennaio 2018, n. 221 – Savani, pres.; Gentili, est.; Baldi, P.M. (diff.) – Busisi, ric. (Conferma Trib. Grosseto 27 maggio 2016). RIVISTA GIURIDICA DELL'AMBIENTE, 2019(1), 141-170.
Variazioni dell’autorizzazione integrata ambientale e silenzio assenso: condizioni di “compatibilità” al vaglio della Cassazione penale. Nota a sent. CASS. SEZ. III PEN. 9 gennaio 2018, n. 221 – Savani, pres.; Gentili, est.; Baldi, P.M. (diff.) – Busisi, ric. (Conferma Trib. Grosseto 27 maggio 2016)
Lavatelli, M
2019
Abstract
According to this decision, the tacit acceptance rule can be considered legitimately operative only for requests of non-substantial modifications of the Integrated Environmental Authorizations (I.E.A.). Instead, the variations that could directly affect environmental parameters cannot be accepted outside an express provision by the competent Administration. The variations concerning storage, recovery and disposal of waste, due to their close connection with the waste management activity, fall within the sub- stantial modifications and therefore they cannot be tacitly authorized. These principles have been formulated by the judges in order to declare the criminal responsibility of a company administrator, in charge of waste management, who has exceeded the previously authorized limit of waste treatment, without having received an express act of modification of the I.E.A by the competent administration. This comment aims to enlighten how the judgment oversteps the limits of the incidental judicial review on the administrative acts’ legitimacy admitted in criminal judgement. In this way, the court ignores the necessity to protect the administrative discretion, thus also allowing a substantial enlargement of the alleged offenses’ typicality.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.