Legal nature has often spoken responsibility of the owner not guilty of pollution (at the bottom of this post you can find a collection of posts dedicated to the subject).
post I dedicated to the responsibility of the owner not guilty of pollution are so many not only because it is a topical issue in the field of remediation of contaminated sites, but also because you can not dismiss the ' subject with few, simple statements of principle: "I am not responsible for the mere fact of being in the situation be an owner of contaminated land, then go elsewhere ....
The maximum of judgments, in fact, still make reference to specific cases and, consequently, the rulings contained therein have value in relation to the case, and not always - in their entirety or not - can be applied to similar but not identical ...
Not surprisingly, this is one - but not the only one - of the main reasons why it is now more than ever indispensable environmental legal advice: ask for help from an expert the field of environmental law and energy to untangle the maze of regulations and interpretations only seems easy to understand, as well as to apply.
In the case that I propose today, for example, the owner of the contaminated site was a common ... the most curious of you can read for free downloading made the decision (Council of State, No. 1503/10) information on legal, after free registration).
Here it is interesting to note that the college has emphasized that if, in general, it is true that the owner is obliged not guilty within the limits of the value of the asset, this criterion can not be certain predicated on the person owns the property rights that the law identifies as a primary responsibility for land management as a whole, what is the City, for which it applies, in virtue of his position, overall costs related to the implementation of the plan improvement, whenever the latter is not supported by specific funding.
The reason is simple: the City, in fact, the implementation of the intervention was held under the title of the owner but not to the specific powers of local authorities and related facilities regulated directions (consortia and companies for the Profiles more operational).
So to conclude, in this case the Council of State rejected the appeal of a town on the legitimacy of formal notice, prepared by the Region of Tuscany to owners of polluted area (including the latest in time the City of Florence), to proceed at their own expense to the interventions made safe by the removal and disposal under the Waste Act, and the subsequent appointment of a special commissioner to carry out the reclamation operations , charged with the responsible persons of the economic burden of the intervention.
***
***
Natura Giuridica di Andrea Quaranta: Studio di Consulenza legale Ambientale .
Contatta Andrea Quaranta tramite mail o telefono per richiedere il tuo parere di diritto ambientale .
Se ti è piaciuto l'articolo, iscriviti al feed o inserisci la tua mail nel box che trovi qui sotto, e conferma l’avvenuta iscrizione, rispondendo alla mail che riceverai sulla tua casella di posta: receive all updates free of legal direct to your inbox
0 comments:
Post a Comment