Climate Change Litigation in Italy

In 2023, Greenpeace Italy, ReCommon and 12 citizens brought an action against ENI and its shareholders, the Ministry of Economy and Finance (“MEF”) and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. (“CDP”) in the Court of Rome. The plaintiffs sought to hold them responsible for damages to health, safety, and property, as well as for having endangered and continuing to endanger the same as a result of climate change.

More specifically, the plaintiffs asked the Court of Rome to:

• Establish (Joint) Liability: declare the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages related to health, property, quality of life, and climate change impacts suffered by the plaintiffs.
• Mandate Emission Reduction: issue an order compelling the defendants to reduce ENI's greenhouse gas emissions by 45% compared to 2020 levels, by 2030.
• Equitable Payment: if the emission reduction order is not granted, determine an equitable sum for damages.

ENI, CDP and MEF objected to “the absolute lack of jurisdiction of the ordinary court”, contesting the possibility of proceeding with a climate lawsuit before an ordinary court.

The Court of Rome, upon request of the plaintiffs, referred the decision on jurisdiction to the Joint Sections of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Italian Supreme Court was requested, for the first time, to rule on the possibility of bringing a climate lawsuit in our country.

The Joint Sections of the Supreme Court is a special body of the Supreme Court that meets to resolve issues of particular importance, settle disputes between the decisions of individual sections of the Supreme Court, and ensure uniformity in the interpretation of law in Italy. The rulings of the Joint Sections are binding on the individual divisions of the Supreme Court, which cannot deviate from them without authorisation from the Joint Sections.

The Court of Rome therefore suspended the proceedings by waiting for a ruling by the Supreme Court, which focused on the following matters:

• Jurisdiction of Ordinary Courts: Whether civil courts have the competency to rule on complex climate matters, especially considering the principle of separation of powers.
• Territorial Reach: ENI, MEF, and CDP argued that Italian judges lack jurisdiction over ENI's emissions outside Italy.
• Justiciability of Climate Claims: Whether climate change claims, in general, are matters for judicial review or fall solely within the political sphere.

The peculiar aspect of this case and ruling is that, unlike the usual climate change lawsuits brought against states or public administrations, this case concerns a private company.

Previously, decisions on this matter had always involved state bodies, with the cases being requests for action to reduce emissions or to declare environmental laws unconstitutional due to them being insufficient to meet international targets.

Justiciability of the claim

The defendants argued that the case was inadmissible because it interfered with the freedom of economic initiative (Article 41 of the Italian Constitution). The Court clarified that, according to the law implementing the Paris Agreement (Law 204/2016), the obligations to combat climate change are binding not only on States but also on private entities that produce or trade in fossil fuels. Since this sector is responsible for a large part of global emissions, these companies have an objective or presumed responsibility (Articles 2050 and 2051 of the Italian Civil Code) and must take all necessary measures to prevent environmental damage.

Nature of the obligation to act

ENI also argued that the matter was a political one. However, the Court specified that the judgment concerns the breach of legal obligations and not environmental policy choices. It is therefore up to the ordinary court to verify whether international and constitutional sources impose a duty of intervention on companies and whether its violation gives rise to civil liability.

Jurisdiction of the Italian court

The damage complained of also occurred outside the national territory. However, according to EU Regulation No 1215/2012, jurisdiction may lie with the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or where the damage occurred. Since emissions have global and widespread effects, the Court ruled that jurisdiction may lie with either the court of the place where the emissions were produced or that of the residence of the injured parties. Given that the company's industrial strategy is decided in Italy, the Court recognised Italian jurisdiction.

The Court of Rome will now have to consider the damage that ENI has contributed to causing the plaintiffs.

Corporate liability

This is a significant evolution of parent-company liability in civil law. The Court acknowledges that climate harm stems from strategic and operational decisions taken at group level. Nonetheless, where the parent company dictates the overall transition trajectory, it may be jointly liable for the group’s carbon footprint. Boards must therefore treat climate governance as an integral part of enterprise risk management, not a peripheral CSR issue.

Shareholders’ liability

The Court innovatively extends potential liability to institutional and sovereign investors, marking a new frontier for “climate stewardship.” Passive ownership no longer guarantees immunity: large shareholders must demonstrate active engagement to mitigate the company’s climate impact. For state-controlled entities, this also intersects with constitutional obligations to protect the environment (Art. 9 Const.) and intergenerational equity.

A new precedent for strategic climate litigation

This ruling marks a turning point in the Italian legal landscape. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognises that private companies can be held civilly liable for damages related to climate change.

The Supreme Court's ruling will also have an impact on other litigations, such as the so called “Giudizio Universale”. This is an action brought by NGOs and private individuals against the Italian State, seeking stronger action on greenhouse gas emissions and an amendment to the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (“PNIEC”), a strategic document defining the national energy and climate policy regulated by EU Regulation 2018/1999.

The Court of Rome dismissed the claim as inadmissible, due to (i) the lack of absolute jurisdiction, with reference to  the civil judge being unable to interfere with the Italian State’s climate action, since it would have breached the principle of separation of powers; and (ii) the lack of relative jurisdiction, with reference to the civil judge being unable to review the “adequacy, consistency and reasonableness” of the PNIEC within the law. The Court held that the Claimants should have filed a lawsuit before the administrative court rather than the civil court.

The decision may also serve as a jumping off point for other European jurisdictions, as it demonstrates that civil law systems can use constitutional principles and tools already available in civil law to address climate liability.

Liability extended to investors and shareholders

Perhaps the most innovative aspect of the ruling is the extension of the scope of liability beyond the administrative and management bodies of companies, to include controlling shareholders and institutional investors. By recognizing that these individuals/entities may be held liable for failing to exercise their influence to steer the company towards the objectives of the Paris Agreement, the Supreme Court significantly extends the scope of climate liability.

This approach strengthens the role of activists, civic organisations and minority shareholders, who will now be able to cite fiduciary and due diligence duties to demand concrete decarbonization strategies and corporate governance aligned with international climate objectives.

Convergence with the European Union's sustainability agenda

The Court's reasoning fits consistently within the framework of European sustainability policy, in particular with the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) and the reform of the EU ETS system.

Through judicial review, the decision adds a new dimension to the process of implementing European climate policies. Alongside legislative and market mechanisms, it also affirms the role of the judiciary as the guarantor of consistency between legal obligations and corporate practices. In this sense, the judiciary becomes a complementary actor in strengthening the effectiveness of the European Green Deal.

Increased responsibilities for directors and managers

In terms of corporate governance, the ruling significantly raises the standard of diligence required of directors. It clarifies that commitments to climate neutrality or energy transition cannot remain mere declarations of intent, but must be translated into concrete, verifiable action plans based on climate science.

Executives and board members are therefore required to demonstrate effective management of climate risks. This is likely to result in increased internal controls, independent audits and more rigorous reporting for companies exposed to climate litigation risk.

Future implications

As jurisdiction has been recognised, the Civil Court of Rome will now have to decide on the merits of the claim. The outcome could introduce unprecedented remedies, such as the judicial imposition of limits on the operational emissions of a private company, or an obligation on public shareholders to guide climate strategies.

Even before the decision on the merits is reached, the Supreme Court's ruling has nonetheless already redefined the context of climate litigation in Italy. Defences based on lack of jurisdiction or the “political nature” of the issue are no longer viable. Companies, investors and financial institutions will have to prepare for judicial scrutiny based on fundamental rights in relation to climate conduct.

Italy could thus emerge as a key jurisdiction for climate liability in Europe, where environmental law, human rights protection and corporate governance are becoming increasingly intertwined. Significant growth is expected in strategic climate litigation, involving not only large emitters, but also shareholders, banks and financial intermediaries, driven by a context of growing social expectations and a progressive alignment between European regulatory reforms and domestic judicial review.