[automatically translated] The article deals with the issue of so-called interim losses which components of environmental damage compensable through the analysis of the ruling of the Supreme Court, Sec. Criminal III, n. 16575 of May 2, 2007. It is, in particular, pointed out that the equation of interim losses and temporary losses implicitly made by the judges of the Supreme Court, while ensuring the highest level of protection of the environmental good, did not take due account of the distinction enshrined in via legislation a cd interim losses, consider what environmental damage "not significant", and therefore not compensable, and the so-called temporary losses likely, however, the compensatory restoration. Such assimilation is, in this writer's opinion, prevented the occurrence of unfair consequences as if the SC had included the damage occurred between the interim losses "not significant", according to the discriminatory criterion stated above, he would have excluded the Recoverability. In the case examined, the SC has in fact recognized, for the compensation purposes, a kind of "third category" which, even if its connotations of temporary loss, and it produced for the serious pollution entities, their effects, or at least similar to those of the temporary loss.
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||RIVISTA GIURIDICA DELL'AMBIENTE|
|Publication status||Published - 2008|