In a landmark case, the Italian state has been found liable for its inadequate policies to combat human-induced climate change and the ongoing rise in global temperatures. The ruling by the Court of Rome represents a significant shift from the positions taken by other European courts and has triggered debate about the responsibilities of states in addressing climate change.
Overview of the case
In 2021, over 20 organisations focused on human rights and climate advocacy, alongside a considerable number of individual claimants, initiated legal proceedings against the Presidency of the Italian Council of Ministers. The claimants alleged that the Italian state, as the entity responsible for ensuring a stable climate, has a proactive obligation to put an end to the continuous rise in temperatures by effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions and controlling the degenerative effects of the climate in the collective interest, including that of future generations.
The claimants argued that the Italian state had breached its obligations by failing to implement adequate measures to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, thereby allowing global temperatures to exceed pre-1990 levels. Specifically, they highlighted that Italy had neither enacted nor planned the necessary steps to limit temperature increases to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, as stipulated by the 2015 Paris Agreement and reinforced by the 2018 Special Report on Global Warming.
A key point in the claimants’ argument was the inadequacy of the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (Piano Nazionale Integrato per l'Energia e il Clima - PNIEC), which outlines Italy's policies and measures to meet the energy and climate objectives established by the EU. The claimants stated that the PNIEC fails to protect fundamental human rights as guaranteed by the Italian Constitution, including the right to health and the state’s obligation to safeguard inalienable human rights through its political, social, and economic responsibilities, as well as compliance with various international and supranational standards.
Consequently, the claimants framed their argument within the context of the "persistent breach of the State's protective duties," asserting a form of "climate liability" against the Italian state, falling within the scope of tort liability and of the general obligation of the damaging party to compensate, and sought to compel the court to order the Italian government to amend the PNIEC to ensure a 92% reduction in national CO2 emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
Government’s response
In response to the lawsuit, the Prime Minister's Office raised several defences. They contested the following:
- the admissibility of the claim, arguing that it sought a court order against the state regarding the exercise of its legislative, governmental, and administrative powers;
- the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to hear such a case;
- the standing of the claimants to initiate legal proceedings; and
- the existence of state liability, emphasising that there is no civil obligation for states to take specific measures regarding climate change due to its global nature.
The Court’s decision
In February 2024, after a thorough review of the international regulatory framework and acknowledging the unprecedented nature of the case—given that it sought judicial action in a domain traditionally governed by political decision-making—the Court of Rome declared the claim inadmissible due to a lack of jurisdiction.
The Court ruled that there is no enforceable obligation on the State to reduce emissions to the extent requested by the claimants. It stated that evaluating the legality and appropriateness of various measures taken by the State to combat climate change and aimed at achieving the objectives of combating climate change as identified at European and international level, does not fall within the range of interests that can be protected in ordinary judicial courts. The Court noted that decisions regarding the management of anthropogenic climate change, which involve complex socio-economic and cost-benefit analyses, are the responsibility of political bodies and cannot be adjudicated by the judiciary. As a result, the rights of individuals for protection against the detrimental effects of climate change on their health and well-being cannot be asserted in an ordinary court setting.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted that alternative legal remedies are available under both European and Italian law. Claims related to "conduct and omissions attributable to the exercise of public powers in combating anthropogenic climate change" are subject to the legitimacy of administrative acts, which fall under the jurisdiction of administrative courts.
Implications of the ruling
This ruling represents a significant divergence from the positions taken by other European courts, such as those in the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, the Affaire du Siècle in France, and the Neubauer case in Germany. These courts have recognised the right of individuals to seek judicial protection against states that fail to fulfil their obligations under international law to combat climate change. Moreover, the Court of Rome's decision overlooks a well-established principle: legislative choices that impact fundamental rights are subject to constitutional, supranational, and technical-scientific constraints, particularly concerning CO2 emission reduction targets aligned with international commitments.
The Court’s ruling also raises concerns about the scrutiny of governmental decisions regarding environmental policy, especially when such choices may infringe upon conventionally recognised fundamental human rights. This principle underscores the importance of accountability in government action, particularly in light of the increasing urgency of climate change.
Notably, while the lawsuit was pending, an amendment was made to the Italian constitution to explicitly protect the environment, ecosystems, biodiversity, and animal rights, as well as to promote sustainable development for the benefit of future generations. This constitutional reform is particularly relevant to the claim regarding the right to a "stable and safe climate," a right echoed in the European Green Deal of 15 November 2020, and supported by UN Resolution 48/13, which recognises a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a fundamental human right.
Recent developments
The judgment has been appealed to the Rome Court of Appeal, with the prospect for overturning the first-instance ruling bolstered by recent favourable outcomes in similar cases in other jurisdictions. Additionally, emerging scientific data indicates that Italy has already exhausted its "carbon budget"—the maximum amount of cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions the nation can produce without compromising its commitment to limit global warming.
The first hearing in the appeal process is scheduled for early next year, indicating that a resolution to this critical issue will take considerable time. The outcome of this case could have profound implications for environmental policy and the accountability of states in their commitment to combat climate change.
