Theft of Used Oil Containers and Aggravating Circumstance of Public Service: The Supreme Court's View

With decision no. 13292 of December 17, 2024 (filed April 7, 2025), the Supreme Court of Cassation returns to rule on the boundary between simple theft and aggravated theft pursuant to art. 625, paragraph 1, no. 7, of the Italian Criminal Code, when the stolen "res" is functional to a public service. The occasion is given by the case of C. B., convicted for having stolen some containers intended for the collection of used oils. The following commentary aims to illustrate, in a clear and accessible manner, the reasons of the Supreme Court and the practical implications for operators and citizens.

The Regulatory Context

The aggravating circumstance provided for by art. 625, paragraph 1, no. 7, of the Italian Criminal Code applies when the stolen item is "intended for public service, utility, defense, or reverence." The Environmental Consolidated Act (Legislative Decree 152/2006) completes the framework by establishing, in art. 177, that waste management pursues the objectives of protecting human health and the environment, true public interests of constitutional rank (art. 9 and 32 of the Constitution).

• Art. 624 of the Italian Criminal Code: definition of theft.
• Art. 625, para. 1, no. 7 of the Italian Criminal Code: aggravating circumstance of being intended for public service.
• Legislative Decree 152/2006, art. 177: general principles regarding waste.
• Directive 2008/98/EC: European framework on waste management.

The Specific Case and the Court's Reasoning

The defendant argued that the containers belonged to a private company and therefore the aggravating circumstance could not be established. The District Court of Ancona had already rejected this argument, a decision now confirmed by the Supreme Court. For the judges, the functional destination of the asset matters, not the formal ownership: if the collection of used oils is carried out under a concession or contract, the service remains public.

It constitutes the crime of theft aggravated by the destination of the "res" to public service the subtraction of used oil containers, even if owned by private individuals operating under contract or concession, as their collection pertains to a public service which, related to waste management, pursues objectives of protecting human health and the environment.

Comment: the maxim highlights two key points: first, the concept of "destination" prevails over ownership; second, the management of used oils is considered public because it directly affects collective health and the ecosystem. The theft, therefore, harms not only the property of the owner but, above all, the public interest in the correct management of hazardous waste.

The Legal Principle and its Practical Implications

The Supreme Court aligns with recent precedents (Cass. 29538/2023, 2505/2024, 9611/2025) and consolidates an orientation of advanced environmental protection. This has concrete implications:

• Concessionaires of collection services can count on enhanced protection.
• Those who steal containers or similar equipment risk more severe penalties (imprisonment up to 10 years).
• Defenses based on the private nature of the asset will, barring exceptions, be destined to fail.
• Local authorities, as indirect injured parties, can constitute themselves as civil parties for environmental and reputational damage.

Conclusions

Sentence no. 13292/2024 reiterates that the interpretative compass of the criminal judge is oriented towards safeguarding paramount collective interests. When the "res" is an instrument of a service essential to the community—such as the management of used oils—the legislator's hand becomes heavier. For contracting companies, it is a signal of guarantee; for citizens, a warning about the seriousness of seemingly "minor" conduct that is potentially harmful to the environment and everyone's health.