CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s35B69855 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s424290C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s3756EA5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAB51C47C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.94pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.26pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s50CB62E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s12EB2D86 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:50.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .sF89D8075 { width:7.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD982BCF { width:4.68pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s127B0F9F { width:2.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD517A0C4 { width:1.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF43EBB0E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE810360E { margin-left:54.27pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.48pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s980E2CFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDE1AC5D1 { width:3.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE4EB4F8C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6F295A2 { width:1.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sAEC88898 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C5C962F { width:4.25pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7483BB9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA32501C8 { width:4.4pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6430D388 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial } .s58BC62F { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4EC10A73 { width:26.87pt; display:inline-block } .sB995083 { width:143.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s8D33CCA4 { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s19053B83 { width:26.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s77310EF7 { width:31.06%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA9297C23 { width:34.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC18851D5 { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF13B7223 { width:26.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s763DD99E { width:31.06%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE3302EB0 { width:34.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIRST SECTION CASE OF LOCASCIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY (Application no. 35648/10)   JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Positive obligations • Domestic authorities’ protracted inability to ensure proper functioning of waste collection, treatment and disposal services during a state of emergency, in place for over fifteen years, due to waste management crisis affecting the Campania region where the applicants lived • Applicants more vulnerable to illness due to living in area marked by extensive exposure to waste in breach of applicable safety standards • Environmental nuisance affected, adversely and to a sufficient extent, applicants’ private life during entire period • Failure to take all necessary measures to ensure effective protection of applicants’ right to respect for their home and private life • Applicants’ failure to show they personally suffered a severe impact of waste pollution following the end of the state of emergency due to shortcomings in management of waste treatment and disposal services Art 8 • Positive obligations • Domestic authorities’ failure to take all necessary measures to ensure effective protection of applicants’ right to respect for their private life in respect of environmental pollution caused by landfill site located between the municipalities where they lived • Situation of environmental pollution continuing and endangering applicants’ health • Fair balance between competing interests upset • Authorities discharged their duty to inform people concerned, including the applicants, of potential risks to which they exposed themselves by continuing to live in affected area Art 13 (+ Art 1 P1) • Effective remedy • Inability to obtain full restitution of taxes paid for waste collection, treatment and disposal services within wide margin of appreciation of Contracting State in framing and implementing policy in area of taxation • Manifestly ill-founded   STRASBOURG   19 October 2023   FINAL   19/01/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Locascia and Others v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Péter Paczolay,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Renata Degener, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   35648/10) against the Italian Republic lodged with the   Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by nineteen Italian nationals (“the applicants” – see appendix), on 23   June 2010; the decision to give notice to the Italian Government (“the   Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention; the decision to give priority to the application (Rule   41 of the Rules of Court); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 26   September 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The main issues in the present case are whether (i) the authorities’ poor management of the waste collection, treatment and disposal services in the Campania region and (ii) their failure to take protective measures to minimise or eliminate the effects of pollution from a landfill site located between the municipalities of Caserta and San Nicola La Strada violated the applicants’ rights under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants, whose personal details are set out in the appendix, live in the municipalities of Caserta and San Nicola La Strada (Campania). They were represented by Mr A. Imparato, a lawyer practising in San Prisco. 3.     The Government were initially represented by their former co-Agent, Ms   P. Accardo, and later by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia, Avvocato dello Stato . 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Waste management in Campania and in the municipalities of Caserta and San Nicola La Strada From 1994 to 2009 5 .     From 11 February 1994 to 31 December 2009 a state of emergency ( stato di emergenza ) was in place in the Campania region, by decision of the Prime Minister, because of serious problems with municipal solid waste disposal. 6.     From 11 February 1994 to 23 May 2008 the management of the crisis was entrusted to deputy commissioners appointed by the Prime Minister, who were assisted by assistant commissioners. Nine senior officials – including the four presidents of the Campania region in office during that time and the head of the civil emergency planning department of the Prime Minister’s Office – were appointed deputy commissioners. 7.     From 23 May 2008 to 31 December 2009 the management of the crisis was entrusted to an under-secretariat in the Prime Minister’s Office under the head of the civil emergency planning department. 8 .     The main circumstances concerning waste management in Campania from 1994 to 2009 are described in the judgment of Di Sarno and Others v.   Italy (no. 30765/08, §§ 10-18, 20-34 and 36-51, 10 January 2012). 9 .     With specific regard to the effects of the waste crisis on the municipalities of Caserta and San Nicola La Strada, several orders of the mayor of Caserta issued between 2 and 9 January 2008 referred to the “serious situation” caused by “huge heaps of waste piling up in the streets” following an interruption in waste collection that had started more than twenty days earlier. They reported that fires had been lit to burn waste, resulting in the release of dioxin. They also stated that the accumulation of a “shocking quantity” ( mole impressionante ) of waste in the streets had impaired pedestrian and vehicular traffic and produced unbearable miasmas spreading throughout the entire municipality. They reported that this situation had led to a public health emergency and resulted in considerable distress and potential danger to citizens’ safety. To safeguard public health, the mayor postponed the resumption of all educational activities, including kindergartens, schools and universities, suspended several local markets and ordered the removal of waste from the streets to temporary storage areas. 10 .     As to the municipality of San Nicola La Strada, in several orders issued between 6 April 2007 and 12 May 2008 its mayor referred to the “interruption in waste collection caused by the closure of disposal sites” and the subsequent accumulation of waste “on all public roads” constituting a danger to public health. He ordered the temporary closure of a kindergarten and primary school, suspended the municipality’s weekly fair and ordered the removal of waste from the streets to temporary storage areas. From 2010 to 2020 11 .     Decree-Law no.   195 of 30 December 2009, converted with amendments into Law no.   26 of 26 February 2010, set out urgent measures in relation to the end of the state of emergency. From 1 January 2010 waste management was entrusted to the presidents of the provinces. Moreover, the Decree-Law set out measures aimed at speeding up the construction of power plants fuelled by refuse-derived fuel ( combustibile derivato da rifiuti – “RDF”) and ensuring the operation of other waste treatment and disposal facilities. 12 .     Decree-Law no.   2 of 25 January 2012, converted with amendments into Law no.   28 of 24 March 2012, set out additional measures concerning the construction and authorisation of new waste treatment and disposal facilities. It provided that the Ministry of the Environment was to submit an annual report to inform Parliament on waste management results and issues. 13 .     Decree-Law no.   136 of 10 December 2013, converted with amendments into Law no.   6 of 6 February 2014, set out urgent measures aimed at, inter alia , ensuring food safety, as well as enhancing environmental protection and transparency in tender procedures concerning monitoring and land remediation activities in Campania. It provided that investigations were to be carried out in the Campania region in order to map the areas affected by severe environmental pollution owing to illegal spillages and waste disposal, including by combustion (the so-called “ Terra dei Fuochi ” (“Land of Fires”) area). 14 .     The Ministerial Directive of 23 December 2013 defined the extent of the “ Terra dei Fuochi ” area, listing fifty-seven municipalities in the provinces of Naples and Caserta affected by the phenomenon. This list included the municipality of Caserta. 15 .     The Interministerial Directive of 16   April 2014 listed other municipalities placed “under observation”, including the municipality of San Nicola La Strada. 16 .     By Resolution of 16 December 2016 the Campania Regional Council approved an update to the Regional Municipal Waste Management Plan ( Piano Regionale per la Gestione dei Rifiuti Urbani della Regione Campania – “PRGRU”), which was published in regional Official Gazette ( Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Campania – “BURC”) no.   88/2016. The PRGRU set out targets for separate collection and for treatment and disposal capacity in Campania. It also established an emergency action plan for the disposal of baled waste (so-called “ecobales” – ecoballe ) stored in the region. 17 .     According to a statement by the Campania Regional Council of 6   July   2020, on 24 June 2019 there were still more than 4 million tonnes of “ecobales” in the region. The Regional Council planned to transfer part of that waste to treatment facilities located in other Italian regions or abroad (approximately a third of the total), with the remainder being processed in two new waste treatment plants in Caivano and Giugliano in Campania (province of Naples). Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union 18.     A summary of the judgments of 26 April 2007 and 4   March 2010 of the   Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) is provided in the judgment of Di Sarno and Others (cited above, §§ 52-56). 19.     On 16 April and 10 December 2013 the Commission brought two cases before the CJEU under Article 260(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), contending that Italy had not taken the necessary measures to comply with the aforementioned judgments. 20.     By a judgment of 2 December 2014 (case C-196/13) the CJEU assessed the measures taken by Italy to fulfil the obligations arising from its judgment of 26 April 2007 concerning the existence of numerous illegal landfills in the country. It observed as follows: “It is common ground that, on expiry of the ... deadline [30 September 2009], cleaning-up works for certain sites were still in progress or had not been started. In respect of other sites, the Italian Republic has not provided any information that would make it possible to establish the date on which the cleaning-up operations, if any, were implemented.” It also noted that the merely closing down the landfills in question was insufficient for compliance with the obligation to ensure that waste was recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and using processes or methods which could harm the environment. 21 .     By a judgment of 16 July 2015 (case C‑653/13) the CJEU assessed the measures taken by Italy to fulfil the obligations arising from its judgment of 4 March 2010 concerning the national authorities’ failure to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal facilities in the Campania region. The CJEU found that on 15 January 2012, the reference date for assessing whether there had been a failure to fulfil obligations, the authorities had not yet characterised and disposed of approximately 6 million tonnes of “ecobales”, and that this would take about fifteen years from the date on which the necessary infrastructure was built. Moreover, it observed that on the same date, the number of facilities with the necessary capacity to treat municipal waste in Campania was insufficient. In fact, according to the Commission, in 2012 22% of unsorted municipal waste produced in Campania (40% when including organic waste) was sent outside the region for treatment and recovery. It concluded that Italy had not fulfilled the obligations arising from the judgment of 4 March 2010 as it had failed to take the necessary measures to comply with Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5   April   2006 on waste. Parliamentary commission of inquiry into illegal activities related to the waste cycle 22.     A brief description of the findings of reports by the parliamentary commission of inquiry into illegal activities related to the waste cycle is provided in the judgment Di Sarno and Others (cited above, §§ 57-59). 23 .     In its report of 5 February 2013, the parliamentary commission stated as follows:   “[I]n this precise historical moment, the problem of waste in Campania is not a regional problem anymore ... it is a national problem that exposes Italy to very serious sanctions by the European Union institutions ... The issue of ecobales, which refers to 6 million of tonnes of waste in storage sites that should have been temporary and that ended up being open-air dumps, is emblematic of the extent to which waste issues in the Region are unmanageable. It is not possible to estimate the exact extent to which pollution has moved into the soil, from the soil to food and from food to people. This is an incalculable damage that will affect future generations. The environmental damage is unfortunately destined to produce its effects in an amplified and progressive way in the next years and will reach its peak ... in fifty years.” Scientific studies 24 .     On an unspecified date the Italian Government (Civil Protection Department) requested the World Health Organisation (WHO) to conduct a study on the health impact of the waste cycle in the provinces of Naples and Caserta. The results of the first phase of the study ( Studio pilota ), carried out in cooperation with the Italian Health Institute (ISS), the Italian National Research Council (CNR), the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter “ARPAC”) and the Campania Regional Epidemiological Observatory (OER), were presented publicly in Naples in 2005 and Rome in 2007. They revealed that the mortality risk associated with tumours of the stomach, liver, kidney, trachea, bronchi and lungs, pleura and bladder, as well as the risk of congenital malformations of the cardiovascular system, urogenital system and limbs, were higher in an area spanning the provinces of Naples and Caserta than in the rest of Campania. This area contained most of the waste disposal sites, but also many other environmental stressors, such as intensive agriculture, widespread industrial activities and a very high population density. 25 .     In 2007 the results of the second phase of the study ( Correlazione tra rischio ambientale da rifiuti, mortalità e malformazioni congenite ) were published on the website of the Civil Protection Department. They showed that the area with the highest cancer mortality and malformations was the one most affected by the illegal disposal of hazardous waste and the uncontrolled burning of municipal solid waste. This correlation suggested, according to the study, that exposure to waste treatment affected the mortality risk observed in Campania, but that other factors, including family history, nutrition and smoking habits in the area might also influence the mortality rate. the “Lo Uttaro” landfill site The “Lo Uttaro” area before the reopening of the landfill site 26.     In 1994 the deputy commissioner ordered its technical department to carry out inspections on privately owned waste disposal plants located in the province of Caserta in order to assess, inter alia , the possibility of using them to alleviate the effects of the waste management crisis. 27.     The head of the technical department inspected the “Lo Uttaro” area, where, pursuant to decision no.   1366 of 4 March 1989 of the Campania Regional Council, from the late 1980s until the early 1990s a limited liability company, Ecologica Meridionale S.r.l. (hereinafter “Ecologica Meridionale”), had operated a waste disposal plant. 28 .     On 31 December 2001 the head of the technical department filed a report with the ecological operations unit of the Caserta carabinieri stating that the “Lo Uttaro” area was absolutely unsuitable ( assoluta inidoneità ) for a new waste disposal plant. According to the report, the landfill operated by Ecologica Meridionale differed substantially from the project that had been authorised in the late 1980s and did not comply with the precautionary regulations on environment protection set out in the authorisation. Moreover, during its operation it had received significantly larger quantities of waste than had been authorised. According to the expert, the area had been affected by “extremely serious environmental pollution” leading to a “predictable environmental disaster”. 29 .     On 1 April 2005 the deputy commissioner for emergency land remediation and water protection in the Campania region ( Commissario di Governo per l’Emergenza Bonifiche e Tutela delle Acque nella Regione Campania delegato ) approved the Regional Plan for remediation of the contaminated sites in Campania ( Piano di Bonifica della Regione Campania , hereinafter “PRB”) (Ordinance no.   49 of 1 April 2005), which included permanent safety measures ( messa in sicurezza permanente ) of the Ecologica Meridionale landfill in the “Lo Uttaro” area. Reopening of the landfill site 30.     On 11 November 2006, the deputy commissioner and representatives of the province of Caserta and the municipality of Caserta signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to open a new waste disposal plant in the “Lo Uttaro” area. 31.     On 12 January 2007 the deputy commissioner ordered the temporary occupation of the land concerned and approved the preliminary draft of the work to adapt it to the disposal of non-hazardous waste (Ordinance no.   3 of 12   January 2007). 32.     On 19 April 2007 the deputy commissioner authorised the ACSA   CE   3 consortium to carry out the disposal of non-hazardous waste at the “Lo Uttaro” landfill site (Ordinance no. 103 of 19 April 2007). 33.     On 22 April 2007 the ACSA CE 3 consortium began operating the landfill site. Civil proceedings before the Naples District Court 34 .     On 20 June 2007 a group of residents of a neighbourhood in Caserta (Villaggio Saint Gobain) lodged an urgent application under Article   700 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the Naples District Court, seeking an injunction to suspend the operation of the waste disposal plant, which they claimed posed an imminent and irreparable danger to their health. 35.     On 19 July 2007 a judge of the Naples District Court allowed the application and ordered the deputy commissioner and the ACSA   CE   3 consortium to cease operations at the waste disposal plant. The District Court considered that the authorities had failed to put in place all the necessary measures to ensure that the operation of the landfill did not damage public health. No proper environmental impact assessment had been undertaken. Moreover, at that time the “Lo Uttaro” area was already polluted, as reported by the documents available to the deputy commissioner and also demonstrated by the fact that it was included in the PRB. According to the District Court, the decision to create a new landfill in the “Lo Uttaro” area had been driven by the urgent need to find a site for the disposal of solid waste in the Caserta province, to the detriment of people’s health. 36.     On 3 August 2007 the deputy commissioner and the ACSA   CE   3 consortium challenged the order of 19 July 2007 before a full bench of the Naples District Court. 37.     The court, pending the outcome of the appeal ( reclamo ), allowed the landfill site to operate and appointed an expert to assess, inter alia , whether its operation caused harm to human health. 38.     In a report filed on 15 October 2007 the expert found that the “Lo   Uttaro” area had been a risk to public health since the 1990s, particularly as regards groundwater, which was already contaminated. The report concluded that the decision to transfer new quantities of waste there was inappropriate as, among other things: -           the choice of site was in violation of the applicable regulations and contrary to the factual findings contained in the documents available to the deputy commissioner; -           any additional waste released into the plant would exacerbate the current risk of damage to the environment and public health, and make any future remediation work more difficult. 39.     On 7 November 2007 the mayor of Caserta, having taken note of the expert report and the potential danger to the environment and public health which operation of the plant entailed, ordered its temporary closure until the conclusion of the civil proceedings pending before the Naples District Court. 40 .     On 13 November 2007 the Naples District Court, sitting in a full bench, dismissed the appeal. 41.     According to the information provided by the Government, which has not been disputed by the applicants, following the above-mentioned interim measure no further sets of proceedings were commenced before the civil courts. Criminal proceedings before the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court and the seizure of the “Lo Uttaro” landfill 42.     On an unspecified date in 2005 the public prosecutor at the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court began an investigation into the management of the “Lo Uttaro” waste disposal plant (RGNR   15618/05) on suspicion that they had, inter alia , abusively disposed of hazardous waste and caused an environmental disaster. 43.     On 13   November 2007 the preliminary investigations judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari – “the GIP”) of the same court allowed the public prosecutor’s request for the preventive seizure of the landfill (GIP Santa Maria Capua Vetere, decree no. 12033/05). 44.     The GIP found that the landfill had been operated for the disposal of hazardous waste, in breach of the relevant legislative provisions and the authorisation to operate the waste disposal plant. Certifications had been forged to make hazardous waste appear non-hazardous. 45.     Moreover, the decision noted that although the laboratory tests carried out on the groundwater had shown that it was contaminated, the necessary safety measures had not been put in place, in breach of the relevant environmental regulations and the surveillance and control plan set out in the authorisation to operate the waste disposal plant. 46.     The GIP found that, according to the inspection reports of the head of the technical department reporting to the deputy commissioner, the “Lo Uttaro” area was absolutely unsuitable for a new waste disposal plant (see paragraph   28 above). The information concerning the size and conditions of the area provided in support of its reopening was false. Furthermore, the current plant had already been used for the disposal of a quantity of waste equal to 4.5 times the volume originally authorised. 47.     The GIP also found that the work to adapt the area to the operation of the new plant did not guarantee the securing of the site and was insufficient to repair the current environmental damage. 48.     He concluded that “there [was] no doubt that from the overt environmental insecurity of the plant derive[d] its substantial and objective illicitness even in a situation of emergency” and ordered its seizure to prevent the continuation of its abusive operation to the detriment of the environment and public health. 49.     Following its transfer to the Naples District Court (RG 26655/08) for reasons of jurisdiction, the part of the case concerning the operation in 2007 of the “Lo Uttaro” landfill site was transferred back to the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court (RGNR 58582/08). 50.     On 14 March 2016 the court convicted the managing director of the ACSA   CE   3 consortium and a deputy commissioner who had been in charge of transferring waste to the “Lo Uttaro” landfill site of illegal trade in waste pursuant to section 260 of Legislative Decree no.   152 of 3   April 2006 (“the   Environment Act”). The managing director was also convicted of environmental disaster under Article 434 of the Criminal Code, while the proceedings in relation to the other charges brought against him (unauthorised waste management, forgery and failure to perform his duties of office) were declared time-barred. Forgery charges brought against an officer of ARPAC were also declared time-barred. 51.     The judgment held that the groundwater contamination posed a serious danger to public health, regardless of whether it had been exclusively caused by the waste disposal plant. The laboratory carrying out tests on the area had already found in May 2007 that the groundwater was contaminated. According to the operational management plan ( piano gestione operativa ), the managing director should have then suspended the operation of the landfill and implemented safety measures, while ARPAC should have monitored the operation of the waste disposal plant. 52.     The Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court sentenced the managing director to one and a half year’s imprisonment and the deputy commissioner to eight months’ imprisonment imposing on both a temporary ban on holding public office and additional penalties under sections   30,   32   bis and   32   ter of the   Criminal Code, which were all suspended. It awarded damages to the civil parties and ordered remediation of the area. 53.     On 9   February 2017 the Naples Court of Appeal acquitted the managing director and the deputy commissioner of all offences because the limitation period had expired, but upheld the remainder of the lower court’s judgment, including the orders awarding damages to the civil parties and for remediation of the area. 54 .     By a judgment of 2 July 2018 the Court of Cassation quashed the Naples Court of Appeal’s judgment and referred the case to it. It stated that, notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period, the Court of Appeal should have provided adequate reasons for not acquitting defendants on the merits on the basis that they had clearly not committed the offence in question, the facts had never occurred, or the facts did not constitute an offence or did not come under criminal law, under the terms of Article   129   §   2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the Court of Appeal had not provided reasons for upholding the orders to compensate the civil parties and clean up the area. 55.     The parties did not provide information concerning the outcome of referral proceedings before the Naples Court of Appeal. Administrative measures for securing and cleaning up the “Lo   Uttaro” landfill site 56 .     On 19 May, 9 December and 11 December 2008 ARPAC carried out inspections of the landfill site. It reported that the amount of leachate collected and disposed of was still low compared to the quantity of waste stored at the plant and put considerable pressure on the whole landfill site with the risk of compromising the waterproofing system. According to ARPAC, the landfill had an environmental impact as it caused uncontrolled gaseous emissions and an accumulation and overproduction of leachate. Biogas emissions were estimated at millions of cubic metres per year, which, in the absence of a capture plant, went directly into the atmosphere. It was considered essential to install, even temporarily, a system for capturing and utilising the biogas produced by the landfill. 57.     Pursuant to Article   11 of Decree-Law no.   90 of 23   May 2008, converted with amendments into Law no. 123 of 14 July 2008, the Ministry of the Environment was required to support the conclusion of agreements with public or private entities to implement environmental compensation measures aimed at overcoming the waste disposal crisis in Campania. Under this legislative framework, on 18 July 2008 the Ministry of the Environment and the Campania Regional Council agreed on a “Strategic Programme for Environmental Compensation in the Campania Region”, which included remediation of the “Lo Uttaro” landfill site. 58.     On 4 August 2009 the municipality of Caserta and the Ministry of the Environment signed an operational agreement concerning the measures to be taken to clean up the “Lo Uttaro” area. 59.     PRB no. 777 of 25 October 2013, which was approved by the Regional Council and published in BURC no.   30/2013, provided for the determination of an area in the municipality of Caserta, San Marco Evangelista and San Nicola La Strada (known as Area Vasta “Lo Uttaro” ) where the environmental conditions were particularly compromised owing to the number of contaminated sites, including landfills and waste transfer and temporary waste storage facilities. 60.     Between June 2013 and December 2014 Sogesid S.p.A., an in-house company of the Ministry of the Environment (hereinafter “Sogesid”), carried out a first phase of environmental characterisation of the area. 61.     According to the test results validated by ARPAC (report no.   22/TF/14), the area was found to be contaminated. In particular, the groundwater was largely contaminated, mainly by manganese, nitrites, iron, arsenic and fluorides. The soil did not have a high enough level of concentration of elements to consider the industrial area contaminated, with the exception of a temporary storage facility where two samples indicated a concentration of arsenic higher than the legal limit. 62.     On 11 April 2014 ARPAC recommended, inter alia : (i)      carrying out a second phase of environmental characterisation of the area, including by testing a wider surface area in order to determine the extent of the contamination; (ii)    refraining from using the groundwater sourced from the “Lo   Uttaro” area for human, agricultural and breeding consumption; and limiting the use of the groundwater sourced within 500 metres from that perimeter, allowing its usage only after analytical tests of the relevant wells; (iii)   adopting urgent safety measures in respect of the groundwater contamination; (iv)   urgently removing and disposing of the hazardous waste found in the “Lo Uttaro” landfill site containing asbestos, and immediately adopting measures to avoid any possible airborne release of that substance. 63 .     On the basis of the results of these investigations, on 8   November   2013 and 3 June 2014 the mayors of Caserta and San Nicola La Strada prohibited the usage of groundwater from wells located in the “Lo   Uttaro” area. 64 .     During a technical meeting on 21 May 2014, Sogesid declared that it did not have the power to carry out the emergency safety measures recommended by ARPAC, particularly as regards the groundwater contamination and the removal and disposal of hazardous waste. The province of Caserta declared that it would request the company Gisec S.p.A. (hereinafter “Gisec”), which was in charge of the managing the waste disposal plant, to carry out the removal and disposal of the hazardous waste. The municipality of Caserta undertook to send a request to the competent authority ( Comitato di Indirizzo e Controllo per la gestione dell’Accordo di Programma ) to have Sogesid authorised to draw up, in cooperation with ARPAC, a feasibility study on the safety measures to be carried out in relation to the groundwater contamination. Sogesid agreed to produce the feasibility study at the end of the second phase of the environmental characterisation. 65.     On 6 June 2014 Sogesid filed a project concerning the second phase of the environmental characterisation of the area, which was approved by decree no.   45 of the Campania Regional Council of 13   June 2014. It stated that the work had to begin urgently and be completed within ninety days, excluding the time strictly necessary for tender procedures. 66.     On 14 January 2015 Sogesid sent the Campania Regional Council a timetable of further operations, informing it that the activities related to the second phase of the environmental characterisation would begin by the end of January 2015 and that, once these activities had been concluded, the project concerning permanent safety and remediation would be finalised. 67.     On 10 March 2016 ARPAC validated the results of the investigations carried out as part of the second phase of the environmental characterisation of the area (report no.7/TF/16). It confirmed that the groundwater was contaminated by, among other things, arsenic, nickel, antimony, iron, manganese, mercury and fluorides. 68.     On 16 June 2016 an article in the Il Mattino newspaper reported that Gisec had not yet removed the hazardous waste containing asbestos found in the “Lo Uttaro” area in 2014. 69.     On 22 July 2016 the same newspaper reported that, although the capping of the landfill was to be completed by 13 March 2017, further investigations were currently suspended. 70.     On 24 April 2016 the Campania Regional Council and the Prime Minister’s Office entered into the Agreement for Development of the Campania Region ( Patto per lo sviluppo della regione Campania ), which stipulated that the measures set out in the PRB were to be implemented, including the safety measures concerning the groundwater in the Area Vasta “Lo Uttaro” . 71.     In Resolution n.   510 of 1 August 2017 the Campania Regional Council named the securing of the groundwater in the “Lo Uttaro” area as one of the actions to be carried out with the National Agency for Investment and Business Development ( Agenzia Nazionale per I’attrazione degli Investimenti e lo Sviluppo di Impresa S.p.A. – “Invitalia”). The Resolution described the level of progress of the securing activities in the “Lo   Uttaro” area as “Planning not carried out. Characterisation results available for some sites of the area”. 72 .     On 12 February 2019, following a request by the public prosecutor at the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court, twelve wells were seized within the Area Vasta “Lo Uttaro” owing to heavy metal contamination. Information on the preventive measure was made public in a press release by the public prosecutor’s office. 73 .     By order no   57 of 28 June 2019, the mayor of Caserta prohibited the owners of wells located in the “Lo Uttaro” area to use the groundwater for human consumption, irrigation, livestock watering and industrial use and imposed a ban on cultivation in the area. Wells located within 500 metres of the area were to be used subject to validation by the competent authorities of test results proving that the water was safe. 74.     According to the applicants, up until March 2020 no remediation work had been carried out in the “Lo Uttaro” area. Sogesid had drafted a project for its permanent securing, which had not been implemented, nor had its timing been set. 75 .     According to the information provided by the Government in the latest observations received by the Court (on 6 July 2020), on 18   March   2019 Invitalia launched a tender procedure concerning the securing of the groundwater in the Area Vasta “Lo Uttaro” which was still ongoing. Moreover, according to the Government, on that date the securing of the area by Sogesid was underway. Findings on the “Lo Uttaro” landfill site of the parliamentary commission of inquiry into illegal activities related to the waste cycle 76 .     In its report of 19 December 2007, the parliamentary commission observed that the decision to authorise the reopening of the landfill site notwithstanding the fact that the documents held by the deputy commissioner showed that the area was environmentally inadequate demonstrated that the offices of the deputy commissioner were incapable of reading their own documents ( incapacità della struttura commissariale a leggere le proprie stesse carte ). Moreover, ARPAC had reported the environmental criticalities connected to the operation of the plan with an inexcusable delay. The authorities in charge of monitoring functions had proved to be unable to provide truthful information on which legislative and administrative policies could be based. 77 .     In its report of 5 February 2013, the parliamentary commission reported that during the operation of the landfill in 2007, hazardous waste had been disposed of at the plant, in breach of the relevant authorisation and environmental regulations. It confirmed that the site pollution and illegal management had been established on the basis of the documents available to the offices of the deputy commissioner and other competent authorities, who had therefore failed to monitor the situation and had even certified false information in order to justify the continued operation of the landfill. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Relevant domestic law 78.     A summary of the relevant domestic law governing waste treatment is contained in Di Sarno and Others (cited above, §§ 65-67). 79 .     Article 844 of the Civil Code establishes that the owner of a plot of land cannot prevent nuisances from a neighbouring plot of land if they do not exceed a tolerable threshold. 80 .     Article 2043 of the Civil Code provides that any unlawful act which causes damage to another will render the perpetrator liable in damages under civil law. 81 .     Under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, anyone who has cause to fear that their rights may suffer imminent and irreparable damage may file an urgent application for a court order affording them instant protection of their rights. 82 .     Under Article 133 § 1 (p) and (s) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the following matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative courts: - disputes relating to any measure taken by the commissioner in all emergency situations and disputes concerning the waste management cycle; the jurisdiction of the administrative courts extends to constitutional rights; - disputes relating to any measure taken contrary to the