La tutela penal del ambiente en Italia: limitaciones legales y necesidades materiales

• Autores: Giulio Adinolfi
• Localización: Medio Ambiente & Derecho: Revista electrónica de derecho ambiental, ISSN-e 1576-3196, Nº. 14-15, 2006
• Idioma: italiano
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (htm)
• Resumen
  • español

    El presente trabajo trata de la responsabilidad penal en los delitos medio ambientales en Italia. La directiva del a Unión Europea, del 2003 ha establecido que todos los Estados miembros tendrán que reconocer, en estas situaciones, la responsabilidad penal del as personas jurídicas. El Tribunal Supremo italiano, basándose en el paradigma clásico de la imputación de la responsabilidad penal no logra encuadrar estos delitos más allá de la responsabilidad individual. Cuando emplea el instrumento de los delitos contra la incolumidad pública, aplica un sanción inferior respecto al daño efectivamente causado. Considerando que los delitos ambientales son delitos con una pluralidad de víctimas.

  • English

    In modern age, the environment strongly needs penal protection. The E.U. is aware of this, as a matter of fact, with the D.Q. n. 80/2003, has stated that the country members must establish an environmental penal system, which also provides for penal responsibility on part of associations. As a matter of fact, as the situation in Porto Marghera demonstrated, it is not possible to use the crimes against public or individual safety for the environmental protection. More generally, in environmental penal law the classic model should be abandoned: that is to say the model composed by crimes of behaviour and event. In this field reconstructing the causal link is impossible, and altering the causal paradigm should not be allowed either, in order to meet the needs of modernity. Yet, this was just done by the penal U.S. of the Supreme Court that, in the judgement on medical offence, through the instrument of alternative causal paths, succeed in recovering causal value even for the low statistic frequencies. Actually, it is impossible to exclude all the endless alternative causal paths. The Judge must not be interested in the circumstance that the facts did not develop differently from how it was described in the accusations, ecause such circumstance cannot be object of proof. And this because the lack of one, one hundred or one thousand defence proofs can never be an accusation proof.