CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 30 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s1DCBFC46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD4F9A385 { width:4.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s10FEB019 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s9907A839 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; 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 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A7B69A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5C494981 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEFEE80D7 { 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% } .sAF613354 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:line-through } .s9386A8B3 { width:0.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5B1AF0FB { margin-left:36pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D4532D { width:8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAF0B79FF { margin-left:50.2pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s711231BD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0; font-family:Arial } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s974F4397 { margin-left:17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s173E4FAB { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA771AE7 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; widows:2; orphans:2 } .sE6931B9E { margin-left:17pt; widows:2; orphans:2 } .sB5B0CEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .sEE6FCDA { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s8C53F40 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA7186A9D { width:36.9pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7B051ABA { width:164.45pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA2F8E2C6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .s5E66C671 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#333333 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sCD61FA93 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sF29177A6 { height:1pt } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 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 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sF88AB0A7 { height:15.75pt } .sB46C229A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s80B03FEC { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FF9BAF0 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s66AFC7B8 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC7B9228B { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:middle } .s484C686F { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:middle } .sCA7EE78A { height:16.5pt } .sC0C5FFE5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2B858B { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:middle } .s5677523E { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:middle } .sED1B537B { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6086890C { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:middle } .sB0A34A68 { padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.5pt; vertical-align:middle } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s39244C65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-before:always; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .s3DB046A9 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .s86525F63 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6; background-color:#ffffff } .s1872B464 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; background-color:#ffffff } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } FIRST SECTION CASE OF CANNAVACCIUOLO AND OTHERS v. ITALY (Applications nos. 51567/14 and 3 others – see appended list)     JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 27   February 2025 under Rule   81 of the Rules of the Court.   Art 34 • Victim • Locus standi • Systematic, decade-long, widespread and large-scale pollution phenomenon caused by illegal dumping, burying and/or uncontrolled abandonment of hazardous, special and urban waste, often carried out by criminal organised groups, in parts of the Campania region (“ Terra dei Fuochi” ) • Applicant associations not “directly affected” by alleged violations stemming from a danger to health due to exposure to the pollution phenomenon • Lack of applicant associations’ standing to act on behalf of their members • Victim status/ locus standi criteria set out in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v.   Switzerland [GC] not applicable as limited to climate-change context • Absence of any other “special considerations” to grant standing to the applicant associations without a specific authority to do so • Lack of sufficient evidence that certain of the applicants or their relatives lived in areas affected by the pollution phenomenon • Incompatibility ratione personae Art 2 (substantive) • Positive obligations • Life • Existence of a sufficiently serious, genuine, ascertainable and imminent risk due to the ongoing pollution phenomenon • Existence of a protective duty not negated by the lack of scientific certainty as to the precise effects the pollution might have on an applicant’s health • Art   2 applicable • Authorities’ failure to approach the Terra dei Fuoch i problem with the diligence warranted by the situation’s seriousness and to take all steps required to protect the applicants’ lives • Lack of a systematic, coordinated and structured response Art 46 • Pilot judgment • Detailed general measures indicated by the Court to be implemented within two years from the judgment’s finality to address the Terra dei Fuochi problem • Need for a comprehensive strategy bringing together existing or envisaged measures, an independent monitoring mechanism and a public information platform • Adjournment of similar pending cases not yet notified to the Government Art 41 • Just satisfaction • Non-pecuniary damage • Reserved   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 30   January 2025   FINAL   30/04/2025     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Tim Eicke,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato,   Frédéric Krenc , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   39742/14, 51567/14, 74208/14 and 21215/15) 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 the individuals and organisations listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Italian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles   2, 8, 10 and 13; the decision to give priority to the applications (Rule   41 of the Rules of Court); the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the third-party comments submitted by ClientEarth; MacroCrimes; the coordinated submission of the Forum for Human Rights and Social Justice of Newcastle University, the Newcastle Environmental Regulation Research Group of Newcastle University, Let’s Do It! Italy, and Legambiente; Professor   M. Carducci and Mr   V. Lorubbio (Centro di Ricerca Euro Americano sulle Politiche Costituzionali - CEDEUAM); Professor   F. Bianchi (Pisa Institute of Clinical Physiology); Mr   G. D’Alisa (University of Coimbra) and Professor M. Armiero (KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm), who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 17   December 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1 .     The main issue in the present case is whether the authorities failed to take appropriate and sufficient measures to protect the lives of the applicants living in areas of the Campania Region affected by a large-scale pollution phenomenon stemming from illegal dumping, burying and/or uncontrolled abandonment of hazardous, special and urban waste, often associated with its incineration. The case raises issues under Articles   2 and 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2 .     The applicants and their representatives are listed in Annex I. 3 .     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   L. D’Ascia, and by G. Palatiello and F. Fedeli, State Attorneys. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. I.         “Terra dei Fuochi ”: the context 5 .     The expression “ Terra dei Fuochi ”, which translates literally as “Land of Fires”, appeared for the first time in a 2003 report by the association Legambiente onlus (a non-profit association for environmental protection), in which it called attention to the illegal dumping and burning of hazardous waste on the territory of the municipalities of Qualiano, Villaricca and Giugliano, in the province of Naples. 6 .     As defined by the Campania Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (“the ARPAC”), the Terra dei Fuochi area refers to the territory between the province of Naples and the south-western area of the province of Caserta. The pollution of the territory in question, referred to as the Terra dei Fuochi phenomenon” (Sixth parliamentary commission of inquiry, Report on Campania, 28   February 2018, p.   195; see paragraph 9 below), stems from the illegal dumping, burying and/or uncontrolled abandonment of hazardous, special and urban waste, frequently combined with its incineration. 7 .     An inter-ministerial directive issued on 23   December 2013 initially identified fifty-seven municipalities in the provinces of Naples and Caserta affected by this phenomenon. The inter-ministerial directives of 16   April 2014 and of 10   December 2015 added, respectively, a further thirty-one and two municipalities to the list (see Annex II for a complete list of the municipalities). According to a report of 19   January 2018 by the Italian Senate’s 12th Committee (Health and Hygiene), the above directives set out a legal delimitation for what the committee refers to as the Terra dei Fuochi zone ( il territorio Terra dei Fuochi ), comprising ninety municipalities affected by illegal waste disposal practices (see pp. 49-50 of the 12th   Committee’s 2018 report). These municipalities have consistently been referred to as the Terra dei Fuochi municipalities and the Terra dei Fuochi zone in a wide range of official documents and instruments. 8 .     The Terra dei Fuochi zone, as defined above, has a population of about 2,900,000 inhabitants, or 52% of the population of the region of Campania. The ARPAC refers to the inhabitants of such municipalities as the “population exposed” to the Terra dei Fuochi phenomenon. II.       Terra dei Fuochi : the evidence 9 .     Between 1995 and 2018 several parliamentary commissions of inquiry into the waste management cycle and related illegal activities (“the parliamentary commissions of inquiry”) were set up under the relevant legislation (resolution of the Chamber of Deputies of 20   June 1995 - “the first parliamentary commission of inquiry”) and Laws no.   97 of 10   April 1997 (“the second parliamentary commission of inquiry”), no.   399 of 31   October 2001 (“the third parliamentary commission of inquiry”), no.   271 of 20   October 2006 (“the fourth parliamentary commission of inquiry”), no.   6 of 6   February 2009 (“the fifth parliamentary commission of inquiry”, no.   1 of 7   January 2014 (“the sixth parliamentary commission of inquiry”) and no.   100 of 7 August 2018 (“the seventh parliamentary commission of inquiry” ). The mandate of the parliamentary commissions of inquiry covered the entire Italian territory. 10 .     The first of these parliamentary commissions of inquiry began its work on 27   July 1995. In its report of 11   March 1996, it noted the presence of multiple illegal dumping sites in the provinces of Caserta and Naples, particularly in the countryside around Aversa and the Domizio-Phlegrean coast, which were controlled at local level by organised criminal groups. It also noted that no supervision or clean-up plan had been put in place, although the authorities had been aware of the phenomenon of illegal dumping and burying of hazardous waste since at least 1988, and it was increasing in areas where the groundwater supply was frequently used for irrigation purposes (p.   44 of the report). The commission indicated that, according to a report on health screening in the territory overseen by Naples local health authority no.   4 ( azienda sanitaria locale , “the ASL”) and presented at a seminar organised by the ASL in 1995, death rates from cancer had increased by 100% in the thirty-five municipalities falling within its sphere of competence (p.   10 of the report). A significant number of these municipalities were later included in the list of Terra dei Fuochi municipalities (see paragraph 7 above). The commission noted with concern that there had been an increase in cases of lymphoma, leukaemia, and liver tumours in the area comprising the Acerra, Marigliano, and San Vitaliano municipalities. The commission further drew attention to the fact that the first investigations into illegal burying and dumping of hazardous waste had taken place from 1993 onwards, although the problem had been known since 1988 (pp.   47 and 48 of the report).   It also recommended that environmental offences be classified as serious offences ( delitti ) rather than as minor offences ( contravvenzioni ) (pp.   29 and 44 of the report). According to the commission, the spread of the pollution phenomenon was due, among other reasons, to a lack of sufficient rigour, combined with an inadequate understanding of the related dangers in terms of environmental protection and health; a vast network of complicity, particularly within the administration; and the inappropriateness of the penalties available for combatting this phenomenon (p.   48 of the report). 11 .     The second parliamentary commission of inquiry commenced its work in July 1997. 12 .     On 7   October 1997 C.S., an informer ( collaboratore di giustizia ), was heard by the commission and informed it about the existence of a large-scale phenomenon of systematic burying of hazardous waste in parts of Campania. His statements were classified as a State secret and were ultimately only released to the public in 2013 (see paragraph 40 below). 13 .     On 22   April 1998 the second commission of inquiry published a report containing proposals for the introduction of environmental offences into the criminal-law framework. It considered that the environmental legislation enacted in the preceding years had resulted in an uneven and often poorly coordinated interpretation and application of the existing framework, which did not provide for serious offences ( delitti ). Instead, it classified environmental offences as minor offences ( contravvenzioni ), which in Italian law are almost always limited in scope and subject to less severe penalties. The deterrent and repressive effect of such a framework was described by the commission as “practically non-existent”, especially if the modest penalties were compared with the highly lucrative nature of the illegal activities related to waste management. It also pointed out that the operational and procedural tools that were provided to the police and judiciary by this framework were limited, creating hurdles for effective investigation of the conduct at issue. 14 .     In its report on Campania, published on 8   July 1998, the same commission of inquiry emphasised that an exceptional concentration of heavy metals had been observed in certain areas, such as the territory of the Villa Literno municipality. An increase in cancers in the province of Caserta was also noted. The commission urged that epidemiological research be carried out to establish whether there existed a link between this increase and the illegal dumping of dangerous waste on the territory in question (p.   40 of the report). It noted, firstly, the existence of what it referred to as “persistent poisoning” of the soil in the territory of Campania, and, secondly, that the relevant authorities had not yet addressed the subject of decontamination with the necessary firmness (pp.   26 and 27 of the report). Criminal-law investigations had so far highlighted that, in several areas across the territory of Campania, pits had been dug for the disposal of waste, resulting in the contamination of groundwater and damage to the surrounding land (pp.   30 and 31 of the report). These investigations had further disclosed large-scale waste trafficking practices involving the transportation of dangerous waste from Northern Italy to waste storage facilities in the Caserta province , where they were illegally requalified as non-dangerous waste and then disposed of in illegal landfills (pp.   33-34 of the report). Between 1994 and 1998 the Santa Maria Capua Vetere prosecution service had ordered the seizure of one thousand contaminated sites. It also asserted that, as a result of the dumping of millions of tons of dangerous and toxic waste, the Campania region was being used as “the dustbin of Italy” (p.   32 of the report). The commission further noted that the judges and prosecutors who had provided statements had emphasised on numerous occasions that it was impossible to secure convictions for environmental crimes (p.   36 of the report). It reiterated its commitment to re-examining the proportionality of the penalties available, which related mostly to administrative offences (p.   38 of the report). It considered that it was necessary to introduce, as a matter of priority, an environmental decontamination programme, particularly in the Domizio ‑ Phlegrean coast and the countryside around Aversa (p.   40 of the report), and to ensure that preventive administrative checks were more effective (p.   38 of the report). In the commission’s view, the Italian institutions already had at their disposal technology enabling them to detect pollutants in the soil and to identify the areas affected by illegal waste disposal. 15.     In April 2003 the environmental association Legambiente published its annual report on environmental crime, entitled “ Ecomafie ”, in which it reported on practices of illegal open-air waste incineration, occurring on a daily basis in several areas, particularly in the Giugliano, Qualiano and Villaricca municipalities. 16 .     On 7   April 2004 the third parliamentary commission of inquiry took statements from a Public Prosecutor at the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court; his office had been involved in investigations into illegal waste trafficking since the early 1990s. He described practices concerning the illegal burying and systematic dumping of waste that emerged from the investigations. His office had gathered evidence of the existence of approximately 980 illegal rubbish tips which had been discovered by the ARPAC between 2000 and 2002 in the Naples and Caserta Provinces. The information that had been gathered indicated that thousands of tonnes of waste had been illegally disposed of in Campania. It was noted that when waste was not simply dumped, it was sometimes mixed with other substances to be used, for example, as material in construction activities or compost for fertilising land. He also reported on specific methods, identified during the investigations, to sidestep the existing checks and to dump waste or transform it into raw materials. He also reported on the problem of illegal incineration in the Caserta and Naples provinces, citing the findings of an investigation conducted by his office into dioxin contamination. Dioxin had resulted in the pollution of a considerable area, particularly in the municipalities of Marcianise, and San Felice a Cancello, bordering Acerra on the one hand, and Casal di Principe and Castel Volturno on the other. Investigators had ascertained that in the vast majority of cases the dioxin had been released through the illegal burning of waste and by the illegal combustion practices of certain companies in the aluminium and iron sectors. With regard to measures to clean up the areas contaminated by the illegal disposal of waste, he cited the example of a rubbish tip that his office had placed under seizure in 2000 on account of buried barrels containing toxic waste. His office had contacted the authorities responsible for decontamination, who had replied that they did not know where to dispose of such waste in Italy. Nothing further had been done. With regard to the possible consequences of these practices on the environment and on public health, the public prosecutor described the enormous difficulties encountered by his office in obtaining information in this connection, and the absence of epidemiological studies into the health effects of the illegal practices at issue. His office had been able to retrieve only some data, again with great difficulties, from local health authorities. 17 .     In its activity report, issued on 28   July 2004, the third parliamentary commission of inquiry reported on the persistence and increase, at the time the report was drafted, in the trafficking of large quantities of often hazardous waste from northern to southern Italy. Once there, the waste was disposed of in various ways. One method by means of dumping and burying the waste in illegal tips, which were frequently quarries, waterways (such as in stretches of water along the Domizio-Phlegrean coast), or large pits that were sometimes dug on agricultural land and then covered up, with the land continuing to be used for agriculture thereafter. Another method of waste disposal involved mixing hazardous waste with other waste and using it in the production of compost for fertilising purposes (pp.   53 and 54 of the report). The commission referred to investigations, begun in 1999, in relation to an area in the Naples province; these had disclosed the trafficking of approximately one million tonnes of waste. This waste was made up of dangerous materials, including dust from smoke abatement in iron and metal industries, waste paint and residue   containing nonhalogenated organic solvents, mineral-oil combustion ashes, industrial sludge, sludge from water ‑ treatment processes, and acid mud. The commission pointed out the lucrative nature of these activities for criminal organisations and noted that they represented an attractive cost ‑ reducing strategy for certain industries (pp.   52 and 53 of the report). The commission further reported on what it defined as a “dioxin emergency” in the Caserta province. The commission noted that this province and the Northern Naples countryside were littered with illegal rubbish tips and had become “a receptacle for waste of every kind”. They noted that, in addition to illegal burying, waste was very often set on fire in these areas. This combustion of waste, which included hazardous waste, generated tall, dense, black columns of smoke and released, amongst other substances, dioxins. In addition to such fires, the committee reported on two incidents of illegal combustion “of vast proportions” which had occurred in car ‑ tyre disposal companies in Marcianise and Castelvolturno, described as “actual mountains of car tyres gone up in smoke” (p.   54 of the report). Lastly, the commission noted that, in addition to the illegal trafficking and disposal of waste by organised criminal groups, one aspect of the problem that ought not to be underestimated was the illegal disposal of waste by small companies at local level and by “ordinary citizens” who used public land, regarded by them as res nullius , to dispose of their waste. In this latter connection, the commission reported that individuals often disposed in this way of bulky household items, which posed a danger to health in that they often contained Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (p.   52 of the report). 18 .     In September 2004 a study published by The Lancet Oncology (a medical journal) reported that the cancer mortality rate in Naples local health authority no.   4 had grown continually over the periods 1970-1974 and 1995 ‑ 2000.   In addition, the health authority’s register of tumours also showed that in February 2002 the mortality rate from colorectal cancer, liver cancer, leukaemia and lymphoma was higher in district no.   73 – which included the towns of Nola, Marigliano and Acerra (adjoining the municipality of Somma Vesuviana) – than in the rest of the territory falling within the ASL’s remit. The rates of liver cancer, leukaemia and lymphoma were very high compared with those in the rest of Italy. According to one of the authors of the study, this data suggested that there was a causal link between pollution resulting from inappropriate waste management and the existence of illegal rubbish dumps on the one hand, and the region’s high rates of cancer mortality on the other. Both authors agreed that the link between illegal hazardous waste disposal and cancer mortality had to be investigated as a matter of urgency. 19 .     In November 2004 an article published in Epidemiologia&Prevenzione (a journal of the Italian Epidemiology Association) analysed mortality due to specific causes in an area of Campania characterised by the presence of illegal rubbish tips, in many of which waste was also incinerated, and sites affected by the illegal burial of industrial waste. The study area covered the Giugliano in Campania, Qualiano and Villaricca municipalities, which had a total population of approximately 150,000 inhabitants. According to investigations by the ARPAC and Legambiente , thirty-nine illegal landfill sites had been identified in the study area, of which twenty-seven were presumptively affected by the presence of hazardous waste. In the study area, cancer mortality was found to have significantly increased, particularly with regard, inter alia , to cancers of the lung, pleura, larynx, bladder, liver and brain. 20 .     In its further report of 22   December 2004, the third parliamentary commission of inquiry (see paragraph 16 above) addressed in more detail the introduction of environmental offences into the criminal-law framework. The commission made a general statement to the effect that there were multiple factors which undermined the effectiveness and deterrent effect of the criminal-law framework governing environmental offences. In particular, it highlighted the absence of any overarching framework ( intervento-quadro ) that would harmoniously regulate the existing offences, which had been introduced over time and through different instruments. Moreover, a large number of the criminal penalties applicable to the existing offences reflected the regulatory nature of the offences. Among other things, this entailed short statutory limitation periods. The regulatory nature of the offences also precluded the use of certain investigative tools, which were reserved by the Code of Criminal Procedure for criminal offences, and also limited the applicability of certain interim measures ( misure cautelari ). The commission highlighted the significance of the introduction, in March 2001, of the offence of “organised activities for the trafficking of waste” (see paragraph 131 below). However, it emerged from the statements made to the commission by investigating judges and investigative police officers that the evidentiary burden in relation to this offence was at times impossible to meet, given the very specific nature of the conduct constituting the offence (ibid.). The commission found this to be a cause for concern in terms of deterrence. 21 .     In January 2005 the results of the first phase of research ( Studio Pilota ) conducted as part of a study by the World Health Organisation (WHO) at the request of the National Civil Defence Department were published. The study focused on the health impact of waste in the Naples and Caserta provinces and had been carried out in cooperation with the Italian Higher Institute of Health (“the ISS”), the Italian High Council for Research (“the CNR”), the Campania Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (“the ARPAC”) and the Regional Epidemiological Observatory (“the OER”). The results showed that the mortality risk associated with tumours of the stomach, liver, bile ducts, trachea, bronchi, lungs, pleura and bladder, and the risk of cardiovascular, urogenital and limb malformations, were higher in an area straddling the provinces of Naples and Caserta than in the rest of Campania. The conclusions pointed to the importance of more in-depth investigations on the issue. 22 .     On 22   March 2005 the Commission of the European Communities (which on 1   December 2009 became the European   Commission;   “the European Commission”) brought an action for non-compliance against Italy before the Court of Justice under Article   226 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (“TEC”) (Case no.   C-135/05). Criticising the existence of a large number of illegal and unsupervised landfill sites in Italy, the Commission alleged that the Italian authorities had failed to honour their obligations under Articles   4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, Article   2 §   1 of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste and Article   14, letters   (a) to (c), of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. 23 .     On 13   June 2005, the Campania Regional Executive approved an initial regional decontamination plan (“the PRB”). 24.     On 3   April 2006 the Italian Government passed Legislative Decree no. 152 (the Framework Law on the Environment), Article   239 of which established that, with the exception of sites of national interest (see paragraph   120 below), responsibility for the clean-up operations in contaminated zones lay with the regions, which were required to introduce regional decontamination plans. 25 .     In 2007 the results of the second phase of the study conducted by WHO, the ISS, the CNR, the ARPAC and the OER (see paragraph 21 above) were published. They showed that the area with the highest rates of cancer mortality and malformations was that which had been most affected by the illegal disposal of hazardous waste and the uncontrolled incineration of solid urban waste. According to the same report, this correlation suggested that exposure to waste processing had an impact on the mortality risk observed in Campania, although the prevalence of certain infections and viruses and the widespread use of tobacco products might also have influenced the mortality rate. Among the conclusions of the study, the following may be highlighted: Numerous positive and statistically significant (and therefore not accidental) associations were found between health and hazardous waste. (...). In the interpretation of the results some limitations ... must be borne in mind. In any event, the observed associations, their consistency and coherence, suggest that exposure to substances released from hazardous waste not disposed of correctly, undergone by the population in the last decades plays a significant role as a determinant of health in the Naples and Caserta provinces. While on the one hand it is necessary to fill numerous knowledge gaps as regards effects on health, it is urgent to implement and strengthen measures to reduce exposure, via integrated waste management policies. 26 .     On 26   April 2007 the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the Court of Justice of the European Communities; “the Court of Justice” or “the CJEU”) handed down its judgment in the proceedings initiated by the Commission on 22   March 2005 ( Commission v   Italy , C ‑ 135/05, EU:C:2007:250; see paragraph 167 below). In this judgment, the CJEU noted “the general non-compliance of the tips [with the relevant] provisions” of EU law, observing, inter alia , that the Italian Government “does not dispute the existence ... in Italy of at least 700 illegal tips containing hazardous waste, which are therefore not subject to any control measures. It concluded that the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions cited by the Commission, in that it had failed to adopt all the necessary measures to ensure that waste was recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and had failed to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste. 27 .     On 13   June 2007, the fourth parliamentary commission of inquiry published a report on Campania in which it noted that “the situation with regard to the waste management cycle show[ed] signs of a dangerous regression, leading to a collapse in the [waste management] service’s operational capacity and entailing serious risks for public health”. 28 .     In its report of 19   December 2007, the fourth parliamentary commission of inquiry noted, in particular, that “a good part of the territory [was] still contaminated by piles of abandoned waste”, that “the local authorities [were] less and less willing to open new disposal sites or to [allow] the creation of [a relevant] infrastructure”, that “confidence in the capacity of State entities to instigate clean-up and development programmes for the regions that were most affected by the environmental degradation [was] practically non-existent” and that “in addition, and fatally, this was coupled with the inclusion of organised criminal groups in the waste management circuit, which contrast[ed] with the largely ineffective nature of the administrative supervisory arrangements”. It also had “the feeling that crisis [had] given way to tragedy”. 29 .     On 3   July 2008 the European Commission brought a new action for non-compliance against Italy under Article   226 TEC (Case no.   C-297/08). 30 .     In March 2009 the US Navy published a report entitled “Naples Public Health Evaluation (PHE) - Public Health Summary - Volume II: Phase I Screening Risk Evaluation” , in the context of an investigation of potential risks to the health of U.S. Navy personnel resident in the Naples area of Campania (identified as a 395 square-mile regional area) arising from illegal waste disposal practices and shortcomings in waste management. The relevant extracts of the report read as follows: “For more than a decade, the Campania region of Italy has experienced numerous challenges associated with trash collection, uncontrolled, open burning of uncollected trash, and widespread dumping of waste, including chemical and other potentially hazardous waste. ... In response to health concerns expressed by the United States Navy and their civilian personnel and families, the Commander Navy Region Europe, Africa, Southwest Asia contacted the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and requested that the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center conduct a comprehensive Public Health Evaluation. The first phase of this study entails an Environmental Testing Support Assessment, which includes a screening risk evaluation of air, tap water, soil, and soil gas data. This report documents the findings of a screening risk evaluation (SRE). The purpose of the SRE is to determine whether or not there are any potential health impacts associated with exposure to surface soil, indoor air, tap water, and ambient (outdoor) air on USN personnel (active duty, civilians, and their families), residing in the Naples area of Campania. This SRE was conducted in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Risk Assessment Guidance. ... The results of this SRE will be used to determine:   Whether or not exposure to surface soil, indoor air, tap water, and ambient air poses an unacceptable risk to USN personnel, based on USEPA and USN risk assessment guidelines; If additional investigations are necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of USN personnel residing in Campania; ... 31 .     On 4   March 2010 the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Commission v. Italy (C-297/08, EU:C:2010:115). While noting that Italy had taken measures in 2008 to tackle the “waste crisis”, the CJEU concluded that there existed in Italy a “structural deficit in terms of the installations necessary for the disposal of the urban waste produced in Campania, as evidenced by the considerable quantities of waste which [had] accumulated along the public roads in the region”. It held that Italy had “failed to meet its obligation to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations enabling it ... to [ensure the] disposal of its own waste and, in consequence, [had] failed to fulfil its obligations under Article   5 of Directive 2006/12”. According to the Court of Justice, that failure could not be justified by such circumstances as the opposition of the local population to waste disposal sites, the presence of criminal activity in the region or the non-performance of contractual obligations by the undertakings entrusted with the construction of certain waste disposal infrastructures. It explained that this last factor could not be considered force majeure , because “the notion of force majeure require[d] the non-performance of the act in question to be attributable to circumstances, beyond the control of the party claiming force majeure , which [were] abnormal and unforeseeable and the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due diligence”, and that