Pollutant Emissions and the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary Judge: Commentary on Order No. 18472 of 2024

The recent Order No. 18472 of July 5, 2024, from the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification regarding jurisdiction in disputes concerning pollutant emissions between private parties. The decision emphasizes the competence of the ordinary judge to handle requests for injunctions and damages, even in the presence of specific environmental regulations.

Context of the Ruling

In the case at hand, the appellant requested the condemnation of the defendant to carry out remediation works to prevent the migration of pollutants, as well as compensation for damages to property and health. The Court established that, although Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006 provides for interventions by public administration to remove harmful situations, this does not preclude the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge. In particular, the Court stated that:

Pollutant emissions - Dispute between private parties - Request for injunction and damages - Jurisdiction of the ordinary judge - Existence - Execution of environmental remediation works under Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006 - Relevance - Exclusion - Foundation. In the matter of pollutant emissions, the dispute between private parties falls within the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge when the plaintiff has requested the condemnation of the defendant to carry out works suitable for the remediation of areas and to prevent the migration of pollutants, as well as compensation for damages to property, activity, image, and health, without the provision of Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006 regarding the possibility of intervention by public administration for the elimination of the harmful situation being relevant, as it constitutes an increase in levels of protection, which consequently cannot lead to a retreat of jurisdiction in matters of subjective rights.

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling offers a clear view of the legal dynamics at play, highlighting how disputes concerning environmental pollution must be treated with particular attention. The main implications of the ruling can be summarized in the following points:

  • Clarity on jurisdiction: The ordinary judge has the power to decide on requests for compensation and injunctions regarding pollutant emissions.
  • Increased levels of protection: Environmental regulations do not reduce the subjective rights of private parties but rather strengthen them.
  • Consistency with jurisprudence: The decision aligns with previous case law confirming the competence of the ordinary judge in similar disputes.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 18472 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of private rights concerning pollutant emissions. It reaffirms the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge and underscores the importance of ensuring adequate compensation and necessary injunctive measures. Environmental disputes require a sensitive and informed approach, and this ruling provides a clear legal framework that can serve as a guide for future litigation in this area.

Bianucci Law Firm