Competition between Environmental Crimes and Criminal Association: The Interpretation of the Court of Cassation in Ruling 18806/2025

The fight against organized crime and environmental crimes is an absolute priority for our legal system. Often, these two forms of illegality intersect, making the definition of criminal responsibilities and the application of rules complex. In this scenario, the Court of Cassation, with its recent ruling no. 18806, filed on May 20, 2025, has provided an important key to understanding the relationship between the crime of organized activities for illicit waste trafficking (Art. 452-quaterdecies of the Criminal Code) and that of criminal association (Art. 416 of the Criminal Code). A decision that deserves careful analysis to understand its profound implications.

The Context of the Decision: The Case of Mr. P. R.

The Supreme Court's ruling arose from the appeal of a decision by the Court of Appeal of Rome, dated March 19, 2024, in the proceedings involving Mr. P. R. The core of the issue revolved around the possibility of establishing a material concurrence between the crime of illicit waste trafficking, a crime falling under the category of environmental crimes, and the more general crime of criminal association. The distinction is crucial, as it affects the legal qualification of the facts, the applicable penalties, and the defense strategy. The Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. S. G. and with Dr. A. A. as rapporteur, rejected the appeal, confirming the prevailing view that concurrence between the two offenses is fully applicable.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: Material Concurrence and Relationship of Speciality

The heart of the decision is contained in the ruling, which unequivocally clarifies the Supreme Court's position:

Material concurrence is applicable between the crime of organized activities for illicit waste trafficking, provided for by art. 452-quaterdecies of the Criminal Code, and that of criminal association, referred to in art. 416 of the Criminal Code, as there is no relationship of speciality between the criminal offenses, given that their respective constituent elements and legal objects are different. The environmental crime can be committed by a single perpetrator or by two or more individuals in concurrence or in an associated form, not aimed at committing other crimes as well, while the crime against public order is characterized by the existence of an organization, even minimal, of people and means, functional to the commission of an indeterminate series of crimes, so as to disturb public order.

This statement is of fundamental importance. The "