Scientific blog · Odours and liability

Professional kitchen odours entering homes: liability, evidence and air treatment

Artur Cokaj · 16 October 2026

Two Court of Cassation cases involving a pizzeria and restaurant explain why authorisations, filters and dust tests do not complete an odour nuisance assessment.

A professional kitchen may become the subject of criminal proceedings when its emissions reach homes and cause nuisance. In the Court of Cassation cases examined here, the problem led to investigations, convictions and procedural costs. For the operator, neglecting a persistent odour leaves a concrete problem unresolved. Installation effectiveness must be checked under actual conditions of use.

The pizzeria and odours perceived even with windows closed

Criminal Court of Cassation, Section III, judgment no. 45225 of 26 October 2016 concerns a pizzeria whose odours reached apartments above, the stairwell and garages. Witness accounts were consistent; the fumes were also perceived by the ASL official and, to a lesser extent, by the environmental agency technician.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction under Article 674 of the Criminal Code, finding the exceedance of normal tolerability adequately reasoned. The civil rulings remained in place, including damages to be assessed separately and an interim payment. The case does not state that any cooking smell is a criminal offence: it concerns emissions whose spread and nuisance had been established.

The authorised restaurant and shared courtyard

In Criminal Section VII order no. 44257 of 26 September 2017, a restaurant owner had been convicted of discharging malodorous fumes and vapours into a shared residential courtyard. The Court of Cassation ruled the appeal inadmissible, leaving the lower court's €500 fine in place and adding procedural costs and €2,000 to the Cassa delle ammende.

The reasoning notes that odour nuisance may be legally relevant even where an installation is authorised and complies with its emission limits. Authorisation is therefore not a general guarantee against every odour dispute. The decision did not, however, order the restaurant's closure or make a conviction automatic after a complaint.

The regulatory framework must be read as it stands today

Article 272-bis of D.Lgs. 152/2006 allows regional legislation and authorisations to provide measures preventing and limiting odorous emissions from establishments falling under the relevant title: installation and management requirements, location criteria and limits also expressed in odour units.

MASE Director's Decree no. 309 of 28 June 2023 adopted technical guidance for competent authorities; its approval is reported in the Gazzetta Ufficiale of 10 July 2023. For a restaurant, the actual classification of the activity, territorial rules and applicable requirements must be checked. Statements in the 2016 and 2017 judgments about the regulatory framework then in force must not be transferred to the present without updating.

Dust, organic carbon and odour are different quantities

A test report must be read starting with the measured parameter. Dust concentration concerns particles; total organic carbon in gaseous emissions is an aggregate chemical parameter. The official EN 12619 summary describes measurement using a flame ionisation detector, expressed as carbon.

According to UNI's public summary, UNI EN 13725:2022 instead concerns odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry with human assessors and odour emission rate from specified stationary sources. These different quantities have a technical consequence: reducing COT or dust does not, on its own, demonstrate the same percentage reduction in odour.

Stack olfactometry alone does not complete an assessment of disturbance inside homes. ARPA Piemonte's 2026 report describes combining it with chemical characterisation, validated reports, field investigations and dispersion modelling. Source and receiver must be considered together.

Technology must match the emission

In gas scrubbing, absorption also depends on pollutant solubility in the liquid and contact between phases, as the EPA explains. The presence of water therefore does not document universal effectiveness against odorous substances.

Activated carbon retains certain gaseous contaminants by adsorption but has limited capacity. Temperature, humidity, flow rate and inlet concentration affect operation. Treatment selection must include checks and management of exhaustion: an installed filter does not maintain the same performance indefinitely.

Checks to schedule

1. Identify sources, processes, operating hours and affected homes, checking capture and the emissions route.
2. Define the parameters to measure and select treatments compatible with the effluent and operating conditions.
3. Document the result during representative processes, scheduling maintenance and subsequent checks.

These are design criteria to adapt to the case, not a promise of zero odour. Assessing an ETC solution requires comparison of these data with the documented performance of the proposed configuration. Air management must also cover noise from extraction fans and hoods and documents and checks before opening. Evidence relevant to the problem itself is needed before declaring it resolved.

Sources and scope of the article

Consulted on 16 October 2026. Judgments were read in full reproductions from AmbienteDiritto, not copies obtained directly from the Court's portal. Public summaries were consulted for UNI standards. The amounts concern the cases described; application to individual premises requires assessment of territorial provisions and relevant documents.