Summary of A Sud et al. Case in the Tribunal of Rome (2024) - PDF

**Summary and Key Points from the A Sud et al. Case in the Tribunal of Rome (2024):** **Background** - **Case Name:** A Sud et al. v. Presidency of the Council of Ministers - **Filed:** 2021 in the Tribunal of Rome - **Plaintiffs:** A Sud Ecologia e Cooperazione ODV, various organi...

**Summary and Key Points from the A Sud et al. Case in the Tribunal of Rome (2024):** **Background** - **Case Name:** A Sud et al. v. Presidency of the Council of Ministers - **Filed:** 2021 in the Tribunal of Rome - **Plaintiffs:** A Sud Ecologia e Cooperazione ODV, various organizations, and 179 individuals (including minors). - **Defendant:** Italian State, represented by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. **Core Allegations** - The plaintiffs accused the Italian government of **failing to meet its climate obligations**, violating national, European, and international legal frameworks. - They argued that the government\'s insufficient climate policies caused **environmental harm** and infringed upon fundamental human rights (e.g., the right to life and health). **Legal Basis for the Claims** 1. **Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code (Tort Liability):** Plaintiffs demanded compensation for damages caused by negligence or harmful state actions. 2. **Article 2051 of the Civil Code (Strict Liability):** Plaintiffs equated environmental harm to dangerous activities under state control. 3. **Constitutional and International Law:** - Violations of the **Italian Constitution** regarding environmental protection. - Breaches of international treaties like the **Paris Agreement** and the **UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)**. - European Union climate regulations. **Demands** - A 92% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. - Alternative: A court-determined reduction target aligned with international climate goals. - Revision of Italy\'s **Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC)** to meet scientifically recommended targets. **Defense Arguments** 1. **Separation of Powers:** - Climate policy falls within the executive and legislative domains, not the judiciary. - Courts cannot compel the government to set specific climate policies. 2. **Lack of Standing:** - The plaintiffs' interests were deemed general and shared by the public, not specific legal rights. 3. **No Direct State Liability:** - Climate change is a global issue, and the harm alleged cannot be attributed solely to Italy. **Court Decision** 1. **Jurisdiction Issue:** - The Tribunal of Rome ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims, as the judiciary cannot mandate policy changes or legislative actions. - Disputes over public policies like climate strategies belong to **administrative courts**. 2. **Separation of Powers:** - The court emphasized the **discretionary nature of policy-making**, which requires economic, social, and political considerations unsuitable for judicial enforcement. 3. **Inadmissibility:** - The court declared the claims legally inadmissible, directing the matter to the appropriate administrative legal forums. 4. **Precedents:** - Referred to similar rulings in other European courts, such as the **Urgenda case in the Netherlands**, where courts ordered governments to reduce emissions but maintained respect for jurisdictional boundaries. 5. **No Legal Costs:** - Due to the complexity and novelty of the case, the court waived legal costs, with each party bearing their own expenses. **Significance** - **Legal and Political Implications:** - The case highlighted the difficulty of using judicial mechanisms to enforce climate commitments in Italy. - It underscored the challenge of balancing judicial intervention with the separation of powers in addressing global crises like climate change. - **Broader Context:** - Reflects growing efforts worldwide to hold governments accountable for climate inaction. - Demonstrates the limitations of national courts in addressing global environmental issues. **Outcome** - **Date of Ruling:** February 26, 2024 - **Final Verdict:** Claims inadmissible, referred to administrative jurisdiction.