Earlier this week (21 July 2025), the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite) delivered its order No 20381/2025, declaring Italian jurisdiction over a climate change litigation case on the ground of Arts 4(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.
After recalling the relevant CJEU case-law on “the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur” of Art 7(2) (point 8), the Supreme Court, in assessing “the place where the damage occurred”, stated that “it must also be considered that climate-changing emissions, despite originating in the place where fossil fuels are produced, transported and marketed, have a naturally diffusive scope, extending their effects to the entire Earth’s atmosphere, within which the increase in global temperature that causes climate change is determined; the violation of the right to life and to private and family life alleged in support of the claim occurs, on the other hand, in the place where the applicants reside, where the impairment of life expectancy, health conditions and overall quality of life, which is the ultimate effect of the causal sequence triggered by climate change, is destined to occur, and where the applicants have identified the individual, concrete and actual damage they have suffered” (point 8.1.).
As per the “the place of the event giving rise to the damage”, the Supreme Court stated “the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred must be identified as the place (or all the places, having regard to the plurality of places and States in which ENI’s activity is directly or indirectly carried out) where the climate-changing emissions are produced, while the place where the damage claimed by the applicants is actualised must be identified as the place where they reside: the application of the latter criterion therefore allows us to conclude that jurisdiction over the claim for compensation brought by the plaintiffs lies with the Italian courts, whereas the application of the former would lead to the identification of a plurality of competent courts, namely those of each of the countries (including Italy) where the CO2 emissions are produced” (point 8.1.). However, the Court further stated that “it should also be noted that, in reconstructing the causal sequence giving rise to the alleged damage, the plaintiffs identified its origin in ENI’s industrial and commercial strategy, the development of which is ultimately the responsibility of the company’s governing bodies, which operate in the place where it has its registered office and operations, allowing the harmful conduct to be located within the national territory, with the consequence that, also from this point of view, jurisdiction must be assigned to the Italian judicial authorities” (point 8.1.).
The text of the order – a must read for PIL’s enthusiasts – is available here.
On the topics addressed in the order, the readers of RDIPP may refer to:
Silvia Marino, 2021, No 4, 898 ff.;
Pietro Franzina, 2022, No 4, 828 ff.;
Edoardo Benvenuti, 2023, No 4, 848 ff.