Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/environment-and-climate-change-laws-and-regulations/italy
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:43:21+00:00

Document:
1.1. What is the basis of environmental policy in your jurisdiction and which agencies/bodies administer and enforce environmental law?
Italy’s environmental policy is based, amongst others, on the principle of sustainable development, prevention, precaution and “the polluter pays”. These EU principles are codified in Legislative Decree no. 152/2006 (hereinafter, the “Code”). They apply to public and private figures as well as lawmakers. An important role is played by the Ministry of the Environment (hereinafter, “MoE”). Important administrative functions are also assigned to regional and local authorities (hereinafter, “Administrations”). Technical surveys and assessments are carried out by technical organisations, such as the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (hereinafter, “ISPRA”), which provides back-up for the MoE and coordinates the regional and provincial environment agencies.
In order to ensure that environmental law is applied, public figures are provided with traditional scheduling and “command and control” tools. With such tools, Administrations establish the relevant limits and then ensure that they are complied with. Administrations are also given the power, when envisaged by the law, to enter into agreements (between an Administration and the party(ies) concerned). The law also regulates economic tools that are aimed at internalising environmental costs or benefits in exchange processes.
With Legislative Decree no. 195/2005, implementing Directive 2003/4/EC, the legislator created a system of rules regulating environmental information and the public’s right of access. On the one hand, the Administration is given an active role in divulging information on the state of the environment regardless of whether requests for access are made by individuals. On the other, it is provided that every natural or legal person who is assigned public functions connected with environmental topics must make environmental information available to anyone asking for it. Environmental information, that must be published, is also subject to civic access legislation (art. 40 of Legislative Decree no. 33/2013).
As a matter of principle, any human activity having any impact on the environment is subject to prior authorisation. Italian legislation provides for a wide variety of permit types. An operator shall apply for a permit on the basis of the type of activity planned or conducted and its output, and the environmental aspects which the system considers potentially at risk as a result of the activities in question. Some permits are issued on the basis of the applicant’s subjective characteristics. Consequently, though the permit of an operator running the activity may be transferred, as a matter of principle, notification to the Administration for assessment/transferral is required.
An operator may appeal, before the authority that is hierarchically superior to the environmental Administration, against a decision not to grant an environmental permit or a decision in respect of the conditions contained in the permit. Alternatively, an appeal may be lodged with the competent Regional Administrative Tribunal within 60 days from the issuance of the decision, or alternatively, within 120 days with the President of the Republic. The parties that are entitled to lodge an appeal are operators applying for the permit, external promoters of environmental protection and public safety schemes, as well as any Administration involved in the issuing procedure.
An environmental impact assessment (hereinafter, “EIA”) is required for the plants referred to in annexes II and III of the Second Part of the Code. The projects referred to in annexes II-bis and IV ibid. are subject to a preliminary check to assess whether the EIA procedure should be initiated. The EIA consists of the carrying out, presentation and evaluation of an environmental impact study. For existing and new “high threshold” installations, subject to “Seveso legislation”, a “safety report” must be drawn up (Legislative Decree no. 105/2015). Environmental audits may also be requested by a permit granted according to IPPC legislation. Environmental audits, on the other hand, are carried out mainly in connection with environment certifications voluntarily obtained by the operator (e.g. UNI EN ISO 14001).
When permits are violated or activities are conducted without the required authorisation, the competent authority (hereinafter, “CA”) has the power to caution the company and oblige it to remedy the violations committed. If the violations are repeated, the CA may caution and suspend activities for a fixed period. The CA may also revoke the permit and require the closing down of a plant. An installation operating without authorisation may be closed down by the CA. Furthermore, the administrative and criminal sanctions envisaged in the Code may be imposed, as well as the environmental crimes of the Italian Criminal Code (art. 452-bis to 452-terdecies), including the crimes of environmental pollution and environmental disaster, which are punishable with weighty sanctions.
Some waste definitions are identical to waste definitions provided by European legislation, and others are not, as Italian legislation also identifies additional categories of waste. Some of these categories are identical to waste categories governed by European legislation (e.g. packaging, WEEE, etc.). In addition to the aforesaid categories, the Italian legislator has also identified other waste types (e.g. some types of excavated soil and rocks). All of the above types of waste are either classified as “municipal waste” or as “non-municipal waste” (rifiuti speciali – some of which, under certain conditions, can be classified as municipal waste – rifiuti assimilati). The definition of waste is, like in other jurisdictions, heavily debated in front of the Italian courts (especially criminal courts, but also administrative courts).
The original waste producer has to comply with all conditions set forth by art. 183, para. 1, lit. bb) of the Code. Storage (deposito temporaneo) can solely occur in the area where the waste-generating activity is carried out. Secondly, storage is subject, up to the discretion of the waste producer, either to time limits or to quantitative limits. Thirdly, storage can only be carried out for homogeneous categories of waste and in compliance with the related technical rules (e.g. for dangerous substances). Only in exceptional cases, and after a formal notification procedure, is the waste producer entitled to dispose of the non-hazardous waste it produces (autosmaltimento).
A waste producer/holder, unless entitled otherwise, has to consign the waste, as a matter of priority, to duly authorised third parties or to municipal waste management operators with which the waste producer/holder has entered into a specific agreement. Liability only ceases if the waste is handed over to the public collection service or to duly authorised entities, provided that the waste producer receives back the duly completed certificate (formulario di identificazione dei rifiuti). The responsibility of the waste producer/holder, however, lacks precise boundaries, as the topic has been the subject of criminal courts’ rulings which have enlarged, sometimes far beyond the literal wording of art. 188 of the Code, such responsibility.
On the basis of the “polluter pays” principle, for some products, specific extended producer responsibility (hereinafter, “EPR”) schemes have been introduced (packaging, electrical and electronic equipment, batteries, end-of-life vehicles, mineral waste oils, edible waste oils, tyres, PVC). New EPR schemes are likely to be introduced in the future. In view of the transposition of Directive (EU) 851/2018, said EPR schemes are currently subject to legislative reform. Italian EPR schemes differ very much from one other in regard to their functioning. Non-compliance with specific obligations set forth under the related EPR scheme may be subject to sanctions.
Liability may be of a criminal nature in more serious situations (e.g. in connection with environmental disasters and pollution, waste, IPPC permits, remediation), of an administrative nature (e.g. in connection with the EIA) or of a remedial nature (e.g. in connection with liability for environmental damage). The measures that should be taken to avoid this type of liability are to obtain a permit and to comply diligently with the relevant conditions. According to the type of liability, the ordinary remedies may be sought before the ordinary (criminal or civil) and/or administrative judicial authorities.
The implementation of Directive 2004/35/EC led to the introduction of objective liability imposed on certain operators. This may lead to situations in which an operator is held liable even when its conduct complies with the permit granted. This is a controversial issue, however, as it conflicts with the provisions of art. 308, para. 5 of the Code. According to art. 308, an operator will not be held liable if it can demonstrate that it is not responsible for any negligent or wilful conduct and that the “damage” was caused by an emission or event expressly envisaged in the permit that was granted.
Directors and managers may attract personal liability for environmental wrongdoings committed in the company’s interests. Environmental functions may also be delegated to a specific director or manager. In this case, the delegate will be held liable, both personally and jointly with the company. Liability relates to the activities carried out on behalf of the company and may be either civil or criminal. There also exists a system covering administrative liability for crimes by bodies (Legislative Decree no. 231/2001), which includes environmental wrongdoings amongst the predicate offences envisaged. Professional insurance against environmental wrongdoings may cover all financial aspects, including the cost of legal proceedings, with the exception of criminal sanctions that restrict personal liberty.
The Italian legal system allows M&A deals to be structured in various manners. The type of structure chosen affects the degree to which environmental liability is transferred or not transferred, or even shared. In case of mergers, for example, environmental liability is also transferred. Generally speaking, in case of a share deal, the environmental liability is transferred. In case of an asset deal or a company splitting up, the transference of the environmental liability must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As a matter of principle, the different implications from an environmental liability perspective need to be evaluated very carefully, also taking into account the evolving case law.
Generally speaking, the line taken by authorities is consistent in holding lenders not liable for environmental wrongdoings committed by the lendee, provided that the lender’s conduct is autonomous and cannot be legally attributed to the lendee. In fact, art. 27, para. 1 of the Italian Constitution sets forth, as far as criminal offences are concerned, the principle of personal liability. When it comes to remedial operations, however, the innocent owner is nevertheless bound by certain obligations such as, whenever he discovers that the contamination threshold concentration has been exceeded or there is risk that it will be exceeded, to notify the regional, provincial and municipal CA and take preventive measures.
The regime dealing with liability for remedial works, inspired by the “polluter pays” principle, provides that the responsibility for the remedial operations lies with the subject responsible for the contamination. The liability principle also applies to “historic contamination” (i.e. contaminations existing prior to 29 April 2006). An owner who is “innocent” is not obliged to carry out remedial works. He is nevertheless obliged to give notification and to take preventive measures. He may be obliged, up to the increase in value of the land, to reimburse the expenses incurred in carrying out the remediation works by the CA if the subject responsible for the contamination cannot be identified or does not carry out the necessary remedial works (see infra question 7.2).
Even though Italian legislation on the remediation of contaminated sites does not contain any specific rules regarding the allocation of liability in situations in which the contamination was caused by more than one contributing factor, the administrative line of authorities has confirmed that in these situations, the operators will be held liable on the basis of their share of the overall liability (i.e. to the extent to which they are responsible for contributing towards the relevant causes), thereby excluding the application of civil law principles regarding joint and several liability for compensation.
The remediation procedure is divided into various stages, the outcome of which conditions the development of later stages. New evidence that arises in such stages may require the entire procedure to be revised or adjusted. Furthermore, if the use to which a remedied area is put is altered, a new obligation to remedy may arise. A completed remediation procedure does not preclude an action for environmental damage, which constitutes a self-regulating procedure even though not totally independent. A third party may challenge the legitimacy of the approval of the remediation programme before the courts when he has an interest in taking action, and the approval in question would cause specific prejudice to his person or assets.
Under certain conditions, extra-contractual liability (e.g. compensation for remediation costs) of the previous owner, or the operator who caused contamination, can be invoked. In the case of an asset deal, the purchaser may bring a legal action in accordance with the provisions of civil law, enforcing the legal warranty against defects of the asset sold or any contractual warranty clauses. The Civil Supreme Court excluded dual liability (contractual as well as extra-contractual liability) in the event of mere damage to the right of ownership. Any agreement reached by the contracting parties as to liability has effects exclusively on the parties themselves and will not influence, if transferred, any obligations under public law.
Aesthetic harm is not a category of damage regulated by specific legislation. However, damage to the aesthetic landscaping value of an asset may fall within the definition of “environmental damage”. Legislation regulating environmental damage does not provide for compensation of the monetary equivalent. There is, however, scope for other policymaking subjects (e.g. local public bodies) to take, under certain conditions, action under civil law to obtain compensation for damage caused to property belonging to the community. Art. 167 of Legislative Decree no. 42/2004 provides that, under certain conditions, the subject who carried out the works without landscaping authorisation or with inadequate authorisation is subject to paying “monetary compensation”.
Environmental regulators, at both state and local level, have a wide range of powers to prevent and sanction administrative or criminal offences affecting the environment. The specific regulations are mainly contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure (inspections, searches, sequestration, etc.), in Law no. 689/1981 and in the Code. The authorities are permitted to carry out inspections aimed at verifying that the conditions set in the permits have been met, or to collect and analyse samples, benefitting from the services of various technical bodies. When carrying out the investigations, the authorities may ask for documents to be submitted, and for any subjects informed to be questioned.
When an event arises that may potentially contaminate the site, the subject responsible and the “innocent” owner/operator are obliged to notify the CA immediately. Obligations to give notification also apply to Administrations that, in the performance of their duties, identify sites which are potentially contaminated. This is also the case when historical contamination is discovered, whether active or inactive. Failure to give notification to third parties may also be relevant, as far as civil liability is concerned; for example, for the purpose of establishing the compensation due for damage by contamination of the surrounding area.
When an event arises that may potentially contaminate the site, the polluter (but not the “innocent” owner/operator), having taken preventive measures, must also perform a preliminary investigation in the area in order to establish whether further stages in the remediation procedure are to be complied with. Subjects who are not responsible for the contamination – though not obliged to do so – are nevertheless entitled to carry out investigation (in order to proof their “innocence”) and/or remediation operations on their own initiative. If the polluter cannot be identified or does not take action, or a third party does not take action of his own accord, the necessary operations are carried out by the CA.
Italian environmental legislation imposes a wide range of disclosure obligations that vary according to the matrices affected by the environmental problems. Disclosure obligations may also originate from permits granted. Recent legislation regulating social and environmental disclosure also imposes disclosure obligations on the subjects indicated therein. In dealings between a buyer and seller, the failure to notify situations that do not meet environmental standards may, depending on the nature of the asset being sold, give rise to precontractual and contractual liability.
Generally speaking, environmental indemnities agreed within M&A transactions cannot limit, vis-à-vis the competent public authorities, the environmental liabilities of the target company. Nevertheless, environmental indemnities, which are increasingly being used in Italy, do represent an effective means for reducing the buyer’s financial exposure by allowing him, if properly drafted, to claim from the seller costs and damages incurred, or even to govern the procedures relating to the clearing of environmental liabilities. Depending on the type of transaction chosen under Italian law, in general terms and except for very limited cases, the payment – between the parties to an M&A transaction – of an agreed environmental indemnity, does not limit potential environment-related liabilities.
The balance sheet is required by law to include, in compliance with the principle of caution, any existing potential environmental liabilities (provisions for risks and charges), according to paras 47–60 of ITA GAAP no. 31/2016. A situation may arise in which shareholders of an extinguished company, that have limited liability, may avoid the obligation to remediate seeing that they are liable for the company’s obligations only to the extent of the resources designated when the winding-up was completed on the basis of a sui generis succession phenomenon. This is true unless, on the basis of criminal law, the underlying conditions are satisfied for holding the managers, directors, receiver and any jointly responsible shareholders liable for the pollution in question, even after the company has been wound up.
The shareholder has a limited liability in stock companies except for those cases defined by the law (e.g. the sole shareholder is responsible for the obligations assumed by the company in the event of its insolvency, but only under specific conditions as per arts 2325 and 2462 Civil Code). According to case law, anyone managing the company in the absence of investiture is considered an administrator de facto and can be held liable. The holding and the controlled company are two separate legal entities except for limited cases set forth by the law (art. 2497 Civil Code), or if the subsidiary has no autonomy with regard to decision-making.
Italy has enacted specific legislation for “whistle-blowing”. The scope of such legislation is very broad and can also cover environmental matters. Public employees acting as “whistle-blowers” are protected as to their identity. Furthermore, they cannot be sanctioned, downgraded, removed, terminated or rendered subject to any sort of organisational actions having, directly or indirectly, negative effects on their working conditions. The above protection schemes do not apply in case the “whistle-blower” acted to defame or slander someone, or s/he committed crimes related to wilful/gross negligent conduct. Protection schemes are also available for employee or personnel “whistle-blowing” offences in the private sector.
Legislative Decree no. 198/2009 regulates a particular type of collective action that may be brought against the Administration and concession holders for public services. This legislation seems to also apply to administrative functions and environmental services. Such “public” class actions, however, rule out the possibility of obtaining, with the same remedy, compensation of damage. This does not affect the right to seek ordinary compensatory remedies.
An action for compensation of environmental damage, understood to be in the public interest, may be taken solely by the State Administration (art. 311 of the Code). Other public or private subjects are entitled to act only in the case of damage of another kind – that affecting his or her personal legal position (health, property, business activities, etc.) – as a result of actions or facts that have caused damage to the environment.
Criminal action against conduct amounting to criminal offences may be brought by the judicial authorities. The subject incurring damage or injury as a result of the crime may bring a civil action before the criminal courts, a right that is also vested in bodies and associations representing those damaged or injured as a result of the crime in question.
Compensation of damage aims at restoring the injured party’s assets, eliminating the consequences of the damage incurred. This would not cover a claim of damage with a punitive or sanctioning function though, recently, the Italian Suprema Corte di Cassazione stated that punitive damage is not in itself incompatible with the Italian legal system (Joint Sections, no. 16601/2017).
The Italian legal system does not provide for any specific exemption from liability in litigation brought to safeguard environmental interests. Applications for access to information of an environmental nature are, however, exempt from the standard court fee (art. 13, para. 6-bis, Legislative Decree no. 115/2002).
Emission quota trading is subject to the European Emissions Trading System (hereinafter, “ETS”), for which Directive 2003/87/EC establishes the fundamental rules. According to the “cap and trade” mechanism, emission caps are allocated to each plant or aircraft (CO2 quotas in tons). If the real emissions exceed the quotas assigned, the operator must purchase quotas to be surrendered covering its emissions. If the real emissions are lower than the set allowances, the difference can be sold once quotas have been surrendered to cover the emissions. Since 2013, power plants must purchase quotas to cover their needs. Manufacturing plants are entitled to allowances free of charge.
Legislative Decree no. 30/2013 establishes that no plant in Italy is permitted to engage in activities subject to the ETS without a permit to emit greenhouse gas. Operators must make an application for a permit to the MoE at least 90 days prior to the date on which the plant starts to operate. The ensuing obligations consist of monitoring and subsequently surrendering, on an annual basis, a number of quotas corresponding to the CO2 emissions released in the previous calendar year. The national inventory of all emissions (not only those originating from industrial plants covered by the ETS Directive) is managed by ISPRA.
Concrete measures to combat climate change are not limited to the implementation of Community regulations on ETS but also include the “Effort Sharing” Directive applying to non-ETS sectors (e.g. transport, agriculture etc.). Concrete measures relate to all the legislation linked to incentives for renewable energy resources and energy efficiency. An important aspect of the contribution made towards the reduction of CO2 levels also lies in the methods adopted to operate motor cars, buses or trucks for the transportation of people and goods. The main topics (renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and mobility) are regulated by EU Directives, which are implemented in Italy by the legislative system.
The number of actions being brought before the courts by associations and families of victims of exposure to asbestos is increasing. The outcome of disputes before the courts at first instance and the Court of Appeal frequently differ. The main difficulty lies in establishing the effects of exposure to asbestos at the time the carcinogenic process experienced by the victim develops. The previous approach, proving to be advantageous to employers, has been disproved by a number of recent rulings. The latest approach, more favourable to asbestos victims and their associations, is yet to be consolidated before the Joint Sections of the Italian Supreme Court.
The obligations imposed on the owner or the person responsible for the operations carried out are regulated at different legislative levels. General sources include Law no. 257/1992 and the Ministerial Decree dated 6 September 1994, Legislative Decree no. 81/2008, integrated by regional laws and plans dealing with orientation and monitoring, as well as individual Municipal Regulations (e.g. Milan). The owner must notify the local health authorities (local health service – ATS) of the presence of asbestos. Actions to be undertaken (including timing) depend on the state of conservation which is assessed by applying a so-called Degradation Index. The owner must also appoint a person responsible for controlling and coordinating all maintenance operations that may involve asbestos-containing materials.
An association of insurers and reinsurers (Pool Inquinamento) offers insurance products to cover damage by pollution. Various policies are envisaged, depending on the type of activity conducted. Cover from insurance companies that do not form part of the Pool Inquinamento is also available. These companies offer insurance products as alternatives to those generally available on the Italian market. Environmental insurance cover is in constant expansion, acknowledged by the fact that businesses obtaining ISO 14001 Certification or EMAS registration pay reduced insurance fees. State and regional laws provide that in certain cases a guarantee must be lodged for an amount calculated on the basis of pre-set criteria (e.g. activities likely to cause an environmental impact).
There are currently no comprehensive data on developments in the requests for environmental insurance cover. However, according to ISPRA data reported in November 2018, incidences of environmental damage are continually increasing. Between 2017 and 2018, ISPRA and the various local environmental agencies investigated, on behalf of the MoE, 217 cases of environmental damage around the country. Given the increased number of reported cases of environmental damage, it can be assumed that the measures taken – and therefore the requests for insurance cover – are constantly increasing. Nevertheless, the degree to which environmental insurance schemes cover environmental damage, is still considered a problematic area.
The development of environmental law in the Italian legal system is characterised by a marked fragmentation of regulations and the introduction of new laws, and the associated problems of interpretation and enforcement.
The implementation of European legislation, however, provides clear guidelines for future legislative initiatives. Over the last few years, Italy has complied promptly with the conditions laid down by the EU without any significant deviation – at times even setting environmental standards higher (gold-plating) than those established at a supranational level (for example, dealing with green public procurement) – and this seems likely to continue in the future.
At a legislative level, on the one hand, the objective is to simplify administrative procedures by creating a “single”, or all-encompassing, permit mechanism (e.g. granting the Single Environmental Permit – the so-called Autorizzazione Unica Ambientale – for small and medium-sized businesses, not envisaged at a European level).
On the other hand, we are witnessing a trend towards the centralisation of functions, unlike what we have seen in the past. An example of this is the new EIA regulations.
The approach taken by the courts is, at times, an expression of a conservative stance, firmly based on outdated perceptions. A number of rulings regarding waste, though the result of objective uncertainty regarding the legislation, including European laws, have confused economic operators even more (e.g. end-of-waste, by-products).
A new criminal sanctions system introduced in 2015 is designating an increasingly important role to the regional agencies for environmental protection, in collaboration, though not always fully coordinated, with public prosecutors.
The authors would like to thank the team of Ambientalex (Francesco Fonderico, Maria Valeria Vecchio, Omar Hagi Kassim, Ermanno Fonderico, Francesca Allocco, Elettra Monaci and Anna Deborah Urso), as well as Sebastiano Serra, for contributing to the preparation of this chapter.

References: art. 183
 art. 188
 art. 308
 art. 308
 art. 27
 Art. 167
sui generis