Abstract
According to recent developments of European law, the phenomenon of the “flow of concepts in a multilingual world” can be examined with reference to environmental criminal law. In this field, Directive 2008/99/EC can serve as a benchmark from which progress towards the creation of genuinely “European” criminal law may be measured. The discrepancies between the terminology of the European legislator and the national legal lexicon are worth noting because they imply the introduction of several innovations in Italian criminal law, which may be considered from the following four perspectives: (a) terminological issues, (b) terminological issues with structural implications, (c) categories of criminal law, (d) principles of criminal law.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
Many factors interact and determine the affinity rate between criminal law systems: often the affinity is due not only to a written law or case law influence but also to particularly authoritative juridical doctrines. Consequently, criminal law-specific lexicon is complex by nature: just because it expresses the criminal law conceptual scheme, this lexicon is created by many factors, not only the lawmaker but also jurisprudence, the law operators, and the scientific community. About the flow of juridical models, see Grande (2000). About the interaction between different factors (especially, jurisprudence and the academic world), see Braun (2006), pp. 235 ff.
- 3.
See Sect. 5.
- 4.
- 5.
Siracusa (2008a), p. 871. According to Recital 12 of Directive 2008/99/EC, “this Directive provides for minimum rules”.
- 6.
Considering that European legislator’s lexical choices are of great importance in this research, see activities listed in Article 3 Directive 2008/99/EC: “(a) the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionizing radiation into air, soil or water, which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or plants; (b) the collection, transport, recovery or disposal of waste, including the supervision of such operations and the aftercare of disposal sites, and including action taken as a dealer or a broker (waste management), which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or plants; (c) the shipment of waste, where this activity falls within the scope of Article 2(35) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1) and is undertaken in a non-negligible quantity, whether executed in a single shipment or in several shipments which appear to be linked; (d) the operation of a plant in which a dangerous activity is carried out or in which dangerous substances or preparations are stored or used and which, outside the plant, causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or plants; (e) the production, processing, handling, use, holding, storage, transport, import, export or disposal of nuclear materials or other hazardous radioactive substances which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or plants; (f) the killing, destruction, possession or taking of specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species, except for cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of such specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species; (g) trading in specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species or parts or derivatives thereof, except for cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of such specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species; (h) any conduct which causes the significant deterioration of a habitat within a protected site; (i) the production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances”.
- 7.
- 8.
With regard to the dichotomy that distinguishes between a strong model of environmental criminal law and a weak one, see A. Gargani (2010), pp. 403–430. About the protection model provided by Directive 2008/99/EC, see Siracusa (2008a), pp. 879 ff.; Vagliasindi (2010), pp. 485 ff. According to Sotis (2010a), pp. 5 ff., however, the directive in question “leads to an incorrect use of punishment according to the extrema ratio criminal law principle (…) [and violates] the principle of proportionality/necessity of punishment in its utilitarian meaning, i.e. referring to the capacity of punishment to safeguard concretely the protected good”. On this item, see also Abbadessa (2009), pp. 478 ff.; Lo Monte (2009), pp. 238 ff.
- 9.
See Article 3 letts (a), (b), (d), (e) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.
- 10.
See Article 3 letts (f), (g), (h) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.
- 11.
See Article 3 letts (a), (b), (d), (e) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.
- 12.
See Article 3 letts (f), (g) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.
- 13.
See Article 3 lett. (h) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.
- 14.
See Ruga Riva (2010), p. 6, where the author mentions crimes such as “water poisoning, water damaging, dangerously throwing of things, environmental disaster, manslaughter or personal injury, possibly in concurrence with “sectorial” technical offences”.
- 15.
See Article 727-bis Italian Criminal Code (Uccisione, distruzione, cattura, prelievo o possesso di esemplari di specie animali o vegetali selvatiche protette) and Article 733-bis Italian Criminal Code (Danneggiamento di habitat).
- 16.
- 17.
About this item, see Relazione illustrativa allo schema di decreto legislativo, p. 7. With regard to Directive 2008/99/EC’s enforcement by Legislative Decree n. 121/2011, see Madeo (2011), pp. 1052–1065; Pistorelli and Scarcella (2011), pp. 1–37; Ruga Riva (2011), pp. 1–18; Scarcella (2011), pp. 854–859; Scoletta (2012), pp. 17 ff.
- 18.
- 19.
According to Recital 9 of Directive 2008/99/EC, “The obligations under this Directive only relate to the provisions of the legislation listed in the Annexes to this Directive which entail an obligation for Member States, when implementing that legislation, to provide for prohibitive measures”.
- 20.
See, on the contrary, Benozzo (2009), pp. 301 ff.
- 21.
See Sotis (2010b), pp. 7 ff.
- 22.
See, for instance, the options of simple bankruptcy provided by Art. 217 Royal-Decree 16th March 1942 n. 267, which punishes the entrepreneur who wasted his patrimony by gambling or managing it rashly (Art. 217 § 1 n. 2) or tried to defer his bankruptcy by means of very rash transactions (n. 3) or made his financial difficulties worse because he didn’t file his petition in bankruptcy or was anyhow very careless about managing his business firm (n. 4). See Lo Monte (2009), p. 241.
- 23.
See Vagliasindi (2010), pp. 485 ff.
- 24.
See Art. 16 lett. (e) of the Scheme of enabling act for reforming Italian Penal Code called “Progetto Pisapia”.
- 25.
- 26.
See Art. 3 letts (a), (b), (d), (e) Directive 2008/99/EC, which has substantially the same meaning in the other versions hereby examined: in German, “erhebliche Schäden”; in English, “substantial damage”; in French, “dégradation substantielle”; in Spanish, “daños sustanciales”. It is interesting to notice that the seriousness of damage or concrete danger is not a component of the structure of crime fact in the Italian criminal system but a parameter for proportioning the punishment (Art. 133 § 2 n. 2 Italian Penal Code).
- 27.
See Art. 3 letts (c), (g) Directive 2008/99/EC, which has substantially the same meaning in the other versions hereby examined: in German, “in nicht unerheblicher Menge” vs. “eine unerheblicher Menge”; in English, “non-negligible quantity” vs. “negligible quantity”; in French, “quantité non négligeable” vs. “quantité négligeable”; in Spanish, “cantidad no desdeñable” vs. “cantidad insignificante”.
- 28.
See Art. 3 lett. (g) Directive 2008/99/EC. In the other versions hereby examined likewise: in German, “unerhebliche Auswirkungen”; in English, “negligible impact”; in French, “impact négligeable”; in Spanish, “consecuencias insignificantes”.
- 29.
See Art. 3 lett. (h) Directive 2008/99/EC. In the other versions likewise: in German, “eine erhebliche Schädigung”; in English, “significant deterioration”; in French, “dégradation importante”; in Spanish, “deterioro significativo”.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
As regards the relation between translation praxis and options made in the field of (European and national) law politics, see Rossi (2007), pp. 139–147.
- 33.
See, however, Ruga Riva (2010), pp. 23 ff., with regard to the new setting outlined by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Abbreviations
- CJEC:
-
Court of Justice of the European Community
- EU:
-
European Union
- TFEU:
-
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
References
Abbadessa G (2009) Dal “diritto penale comunitario” al diritto penale della nuova Unione Europea: problematica dell’interregno. In: Rivista trimestrale di diritto penale dell’economia, No. 3, pp 457–506
Benozzo M (2009) La direttiva sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente tra intenzionalità, grave negligenza e responsabilità delle persone giuridiche. In: Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria, alimentare e dell’ambiente, No. 5, pp 299–304
Braun A (2006) Giudici e accademia nell’esperienza inglese. Storia di un dialogo. Il Mulino, Bologna
D’Amico M (2000) Qualità della legislazione, diritto penale e principi costituzionali. In: Rivista di diritto costituzionale, pp 3–61
Di Ciommo M (2007) The Effective Protection of Rights and the Rule of Law Nowadays: The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the UK’s Constitutional Law. In: Teoria del diritto e dello Stato. Rivista di cultura e scienza giuridica, No. 1, pp 105–128
Fanchiotti V (2009) Il revival della rule of law. In: Cassazione penale, No. 2, pp 754–765
Gargani A (2010) La protezione immediata dell’ambiente tra obblighi comunitari di incriminazione e tutela giudiziaria. In: Vinciguerra S, Dassano F (eds) Scritti in memoria di Giuliano Marini. ESI, Napoli, pp 403–430
Grande E (2000) Imitazione e diritto: ipotesi sulla circolazione dei modelli. Giappichelli, Torino
Lo Monte E (2009) La direttiva 2008/99/CE sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente: una (a dir poco) problematica attuazione. In: Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria, alimentare e dell’ambiente, No. 4, pp 231–245
Madeo A (2011) Un recepimento solo parziale della Direttiva 2008/99/CE sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente. In: Diritto penale e processo, No. 9, pp 1052–1065
Manes V (2005) Il principio di offensività nel diritto penale. Canone di politica criminale, criterio ermeneutico, parametro di ragionevolezza. Giappichelli, Torino
Manes V (2011) I recenti tracciati della giurisprudenza costituzionale in materia di offensività e ragionevolezza. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011
Mannozzi G, Consulich F (2006) La sentenza della Corte di Giustizia C-176/03: riflessi penalistici in tema di principio di legalità e politica dei beni giuridici. In: Rivista trimestrale di diritto penale dell’economia, No. 4, pp 899–943
Marcolini S (2006) Decisione quadro o direttiva per proteggere l’ambiente attraverso il diritto penale? In: Cassazione penale, No. 1, pp 240–247
Palombella G (2009a) Il Rule of law oltre lo Stato. In: Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico, No. 2, pp 325–357
Palombella G (2009b) Il Rule of Law. Argomenti di una teoria (giuridica) istituzionale. In: Sociologia del diritto, No. 1, pp 27–66
Pelissero M (2010) Dalle sollecitazioni della giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia al Trattato di Lisbona: il rafforzamento della politica penale dell’Unione Europea. In: Vinciguerra S, Dassano F (eds) Scritti in memoria di Giuliano Marini. ESI, Napoli, pp 661–680
Pinelli C (2007) Rule of Law: The Waning of the English v. Continental Dichotomy and the Emergence of a European Legal Order. In: Teoria del diritto e dello Stato. Rivista di cultura e scienza giuridica, No. 1, pp 129–139
Pistorelli L, Scarcella A (2011) Relazione dell’Ufficio del Massimario presso la Corte Suprema di Cassazione. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011
Plantamura V (2009) Una nuova frontiera europea per il diritto penale. In: Diritto penale e processo, No. 7, pp 911–921
Rossi P (2007) Il diritto plurilingue europeo nella prospettiva del legislatore comunitario e dell’interprete nazionale. In: Politica del diritto, No. 1, pp 139–147
Ruga Riva C (2010) Il recepimento delle direttive comunitarie sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente: grandi novità per le persone giuridiche, poche per le persone fisiche. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011
Ruga Riva C (2011) Il decreto legislativo di recepimento delle direttive comunitarie sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente: nuovi reati, nuova responsabilità degli enti da reato ambientale. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011
Satta A (2010) Gli obblighi comunitari di tutela penale ambientale alla luce della direttiva 2008/99/CE e del Trattato di Lisbona. In: Rivista penale, No. 12, pp 1222–1230
Scarcella A (2011) Nuovi “ecoreati” ed estensione ai reati ambientali del D.Lgs. n. 231/2001 sulla responsabilità degli enti. In: Ambiente & Sviluppo, No. 10, pp 854–859
Scoletta M (2012) Obblighi europei di criminalizzazione e responsabilità degli enti per reati ambientali (Note a margine del d.lgs. n. 121/2011 attuativo delle direttive comunitarie sulla tutela dell’ambiente). In: Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente, No. 1, pp 17–48
Siracusa L (2008a) La competenza comunitaria in ambito penale al primo banco di prova: la direttiva europea sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente. In: Rivista trimestrale di diritto penale dell’economia, No. 4, pp 863–900
Siracusa L (2008b) L’attuazione della Direttiva europea sulla tutela dell’ambiente tramite il diritto penale. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011
Siracusa L (2008c) Verso la comunitarizzazione della potestà normativa penale: un nuovo “tassello” della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea. In: Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, No. 1, pp 241–275
Sotis C (2010a) I principi di necessità e proporzionalità della pena nel diritto dell’Unione europea dopo Lisbona. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011
Sotis C (2010b) Il Trattato di Lisbona e le competenze penali dell’Unione europea. In: Cassazione penale, No. 3, pp 1146–1166
Vagliasindi GM (1999) Diritto penale ambientale e diretta efficacia delle direttive comunitarie. In: Cassazione penale, No. 1, pp 269–285
Vagliasindi GM (2010) La direttiva 2008/99/CE e il Trattato di Lisbona: verso un nuovo volto del diritto penale ambientale italiano. In: Diritto del commercio internazionale, No. 3, pp 449–492
Vergine AL (2009) Nuovi orizzonti del diritto penale ambientale? In: Ambiente & Sviluppo, No. 1, pp 5–14
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Perini, C. (2014). The Influence of Directive 2008/99/EC on the Harmonization and Renewal of the Lexicon of Environmental Criminal Law. In: Ruggieri, F. (eds) Criminal Proceedings, Languages and the European Union. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37152-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37152-3_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-37151-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-37152-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)