The first italian climate case: Giudizio Universale

Amedeo Del Galdo, UPO

2024

The number of cases regarding climate change have strongly increased worldwide and the growing importance that they are assuming is impressive. Originating some twenty years ago, they are now a widespread and constantly evolving phenomenon that attracts the attention of countless jurists. All climate change litigations are the attempt by climate activists networks to strive for a way to force States or polluting industries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and protect the environment from the effects of the climate crisis.

Italy is one of the last European countries to host a case of climate change litigation against the State that is currently still ongoing. In fact, we have only the first court instance decision that ruled against the actors.

The Italian case, designated “Giudizio Universale,” was initiated on June 4, 2021, by 24 associations whose mission is the defense of the environment and 179 physical individuals (including 17 minors) against the Italian State. The plaintiffs sought an order from the defendant to implement positive actions to reduce GHG emissions in Italy in alignment with the climate goals negotiated with the Paris Agreement of 2015.

The plaintiffs claim that there exists a link between the fundamental rights granted by the Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with the climate crisis and that they have legal standing to seek for protection against the Italian State. The actors assert that the Italian State bears a “climate obligation,” which encompasses adherence to the standards set forth in the Paris Agreement to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2°C. This climate obligation has its sources in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the overarching treaty that encompasses the Paris Agreement, as well as in the European Union regulations numbers 2018/842, 2018/1999, 2020/852, and 2021/241. The lack of actions to achieve these standards would harm the legal positions of the claimants and, on this basis, they ask for a declaration of responsibility and for an order to act within the of civil liability framework.

It is essential to contextualise the situation of the Italian region in the context of the climate crisis. Indeed, global warming is a worldwide issue, but it affects particularly the Italian peninsula. This happens because Italy is inside a so-called “climate hotspot” that are sensitive regions of the globe more vulnerable, where the effects of global warming are stronger and can cause worse consequences. The Mediterranean sea is one of these climate hotspots and in this region the temperature already rose to 1.5 C°. This particular condition has many ecological consequences that the environment is already facing. Within the last 60 years, 30% of Alpine glaciers have already been lost and the worst-case scenarios for the future foresee that the loss could reach 94% of the glaciers by the end of this century.

The most tragic incident occurred on July 3rd, 2022 when an enormous mass of the glacier “Marmolada” abnormally detached and caught many hikers, causing 11 victims. It’s scientifically proven that the climate crisis is the cause of this detachment.

This episode, not the only one that occurred in Italy, has been displayed to highlight that the effects of the climate crisis are already visible in the Italian region causing not only environmental harms but also human losses.

The Tribunal of Rome has declared the lack of standing of the applicants and an absolute lack of jurisdiction, since the case involved many political questions that should be addressed by the government or the Parliament. The judge did not agree with the arguments of the plaintiffs, stating that: «It cannot be maintained that there exists a private law obligation for the State, amenable to enforcement on the part of individuals, to reduce emissions in the way asked for by the claimants. In this sense, the interest for which the claimants are demanding protection (…) does not form part of the subjective interests protected by the law, in that the decisions pertaining to the ways and timing in which anthropogenic climate change is to be handled (…) fall within the competence of the political organs and cannot be ruled upon in the present case”.

In light of these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the individual in question lacks the legal standing to pursue climate protection on behalf of the collective. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the actions of the States in matters pertaining to climate protection, given the multifaceted nature of these issues and their inherent political dimensions. The decision has been criticized by many commentators. 

First of all, the application of the political question doctrine appears incorrect, due to the many precedents in other European jurisdictions that recognized the existence of a climate obligation at the national level (see for example the Urgenda case in The Netherlands). The question of how to achieve a certain standard might be a matter for political discretion. However, it is the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens, including from the effects of climate change. This viewpoint has recently been reinforced by the groundbreaking pronouncement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. In this ruling, the Court undertook a comprehensive re-evaluation of the climate obligation of States parties to the ECHR. 

The second criticism levied against this decision regards the lack of standing. This is a particularly salient issue that is commonly encountered in the context of litigation pertaining to environmental matters. It would appear that there is still some confusion as to the distinction between the protection of the climate and other generic environmental issues. These other issues may involve public health, the landscape, cultural issues and several other factors. The climate is the foundation of any life form on this planet and the fact that the position is shared with a multitude of individuals does not diminish the fact that it is strictly linked with the protection of every fundamental right of the person. Denying the chance to defend the climate implies the denial of seeking the protection of the fundamental rights of the human being. It is evident that the inclination to solely contemplate individual assertions, coupled with the apprehension for any form of actio popularis, is a defining characteristic of private law. However, the climate issues highlight this trait, creating a contradiction between the necessity to protect the most basic legal positions of individuals with the fact that we all share (approximately) the same material position about the climate crisis.

It would be premature to conclude that the debate surrounding the “Giudizio Universale” case is at an end, given that there is still a considerable distance to travel before the case is concluded. The increasing number of instances asking for climate justice that concretizes in a climate change litigation represent a challenge for the juridical system that necessarily will change in a world of ecological challenges. Nonetheless, only the future will tell us in which way.

Further readings and resources:

Mank B. C. (2005). Standing and global warming: is injury to all injury to none. in Environmental Law Commons, 35.

Tuel A. – E. A. Eltahir (2020). Why Is the Mediterranean a Climate Change Hot Spot?, in Journal of Climate, 33. 

Tribunale di Roma, case n. 39415/2024, judgment of 26 February 2024 https://giudiziouniversale.eu/la-causa-legale/.