CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; 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 } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sCD7D0356 { 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; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .s5418B97B { width:144.79pt; 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 } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s1AB2C6AD { width:90.6%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sE3A448E9 { width:10.36%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s290B282F { width:20.88%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sE9679B8E { width:23.2%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sF8B00D9E { width:22.12%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sD49CDB14 { width:23.44%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIRST SECTION CASE OF L.F. AND OTHERS v. ITALY (Application no. 52854/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private life • Domestic authorities’ failure to take all necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of the applicants’ rights in respect of environmental pollution caused by the continuing operation of a foundry near their home in the Salerno municipality (Campania region) • Applicants, living within six kilometres of the plant, more vulnerable to illness due to pollution exposure • Despite tangible effects of post-2016 measures aimed at minimising harmful effects of the foundry’s operation, in authorising its continued operation, authorities failed to consider the previous significant harmful effects on the local population from prolonged exposure to pollution • Fair balance between competing interests not struck Art 46 • Execution of judgment • General measures • Respondent State free to choose means by which to discharge legal obligation under this provision • Applicants’ Art   8 complaints could be remedied by duly addressing environmental hazards so that foundry’s environmental impact became fully compatible with its location in a residential area • Possible relocation of the plant • Domestic authorities free to use any coercive powers available under domestic law or to negotiate a mutually agreed solution with the company operating the foundry   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 6 May 2025   FINAL   15/09/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of L.F. and Others v.   Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Erik Wennerström , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Raffaele Sabato,   Frédéric Krenc,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   52854/18) 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 153 Italian nationals (“the applicants” – see appendix) on 3   November 2018; the decision to give notice to the Italian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles   2, 8 and 13 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 25   March 2025, 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 protective measures to minimise or eliminate the effects of the pollution allegedly caused by the continuing operation of a foundry near the applicants’ home in the municipality of Salerno, in violation of their rights under Articles   2 and 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ personal details are set out in the appendix. They were represented by Mr   A. Saccucci, a lawyer practising in Rome. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   L. D’Ascia, Avvocato dello Stato . 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Fonderie Pisano & C. S.p.A. 5.     Fonderie Pisano (“the company”) operates a secondary smelting foundry for ferrous metals with a production capacity of up to 300 tonnes per day (“the plant” or “the foundry”). 6.     The plant, in operation since 1960, is located in the northern area of the municipality of Salerno (Campania). 7.     In the 1963 general land-use plan ( piano regolatore generale ), the area was classified as industrial, with a prohibition on residential development. 8 .     An urban plan approved on 16   November 2006 ( Piano Urbanistico Comunale – “the 2006 PUC”) deemed the plant “absolutely incompatible” with the surrounding urbanised context (as stated in the environmental report attached to the 2006 PUC) and classified the area as a transformation zone for residential use, subject to the relocation of production activities and the preservation of jobs. 9 .     Following the adoption of the 2006 PUC, despite no relocation efforts being undertaken, the area was opened for residential development. 10.     According to the applicants’ latest observations, received by the Court on 12   July 2024, the plant is still in operation. The Government did not dispute this. The APPLICANTS’ situation and the epidemiological study 11.     The applicants live in the municipalities of Salerno, Pellezzano and Baronissi (Campania), an area located in the Irno Valley. According to the documents submitted by them and not contested by the Government, they all live within six kilometres of the plant, with the exception of the applicants listed in the appendix as nos.   23 and 67, who live considerably further away. 12 .     In 2016 a group of the applicants, together with other residents, set up an association, Salute e Vita, to represent their collective interests in environmental and health protection. The other applicants joined on various dates. The association has taken several administrative and judicial initiatives to address environment pollution stemming from the plant. 13 .     On 28   January 2017 both the company and Salute e Vita signed a memorandum of understanding to collaborate with the health authorities in biomonitoring the local population. 14.     The impact of the plant’s emissions on the health of the local population has been the subject of an epidemiological study ( Studio di Esposizione nella Popolazione Suscettibile – hereinafter “SPES study” or “epidemiological study”) carried out in the territory of the Campania Region by local and national health authorities (including the Southern Italy Experimental Zooprophylactic Institute, the National Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment “G. Pascale” and the National Institute of Health). 15 .     As stated in the preliminary report of 27   March 2018, the SPES study identified two specific clusters in the territory of the municipalities of Salerno, Pellezzano and Baronissi within a radius of three kilometres from the plant (“Irno Valley 1” and “Irno Valley 2”). 16 .     A group of 400 residents aged between 20 and 49 (out of approximately 9,000) took part in the epidemiological study, including the applicants L.F., P.A., N.B. and C.C. 17.     In 2021 the Campania Region published the final report (of April 2021) of the SPES study, which placed the Irno Valley clusters in a medium-impact area for environmental pressure. The study specified that these clusters fell within a macro-area facing critical issues owing to “the presence of industrial plants contributing significantly to the spread of heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons”. 18 .     The analysis of heavy metals in serum samples taken from volunteers in the Irno Valley clusters revealed that their average mercury levels were approximately five times higher than those of the entire population assessed. The Irno Valley clusters were also associated with higher levels of other heavy metals, including lithium, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, antimony and zinc, and with “a consistent statistical significance” of organic compounds, namely dioxins and furans, DL-PCB (dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls) and NDL-PCB (non-dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls). 19 .     The SPES study further specified that data obtained from exposure biomarker analyses were confirmed by effect biomarker analyses. In particular, in medium-impact areas like the Irno Valley clusters, the epidemiological study showed “an interesting increase in oestrogen signalling and thyroid hormone pathways, as well as in the endocrine resistance [pathway]”. These results were found to be consistent with the elevated levels of organic compounds detected in the clusters and showed an “enrichment of gene sets involved in metabolic and cancer pathways ... as well as breast cancer, gastric cancer, small and non-small lung cancer, melanoma, cell cycle and p53 signalling”. 20.     The impact of the plant’s emissions on the environment and the health of the local population was subsequently analysed by experts appointed by the national authorities in criminal proceedings (see paragraphs   77-87 below). Administrative measures and proceedings Environmental authorisations issued prior to 2012 21 .     In 1998 and 1999 the company was issued a provisional authorisation for air emissions (Campania Region deliberation no.   9983 of 31   December 1998) and an authorisation for the discharge of rainwater into the River Irno (Salerno Province deliberation no.   4529 of 29   April 1999). A procedure for the issuance of a final authorisation for air emissions was initiated but subsequently suspended and never resumed. In 2008 Salerno Province issued an authorisation for the discharge of wastewater into the River Irno (deliberation no.   35 of 27   February 2008). The validity and scope of these authorisations were challenged in several sets of criminal proceedings (see paragraphs   57, 61 and 65 below). Integrated environmental authorisation of 26   July 2012 22.     By Decree no.   149 of 26   July 2012, the Campania Region issued an integrated environmental authorisation ( Autorizzazione Integrata Ambientale – “the 2012 AIA”), which included a plan for periodic monitoring activities, the applicable “best available techniques” (hereinafter “BAT”) for the operation of the plant and a list of the authorised air and water emissions. 23.     The validity of the 2012 AIA was challenged in criminal proceedings (see paragraph   65 below). 24 .     The Regional Agency for Environmental Protection in Campania ( Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale della Campania – “ARPAC”) carried out a special inspection at the request of the judicial authorities. In its report of 12   November 2015, it found numerous and serious violations in the operation of the plant, citing a “total absence of the measures required by the BAT”, including those relating to the reduction of emissions, which were found to have been “released into the environment, with disturbance to residents in the immediate vicinity of the plant”. ARPAC also reported poor maintenance of air emission treatment systems and a lack of action to cope with the significant excess emissions reported in the results of self-monitoring activities. ARPAC also found that the 2012 AIA was “deficient and contradictory” and that the administrative authorities had “not made use of the AIA procedure to impose a substantial improvement in environmental performance on the company”. 25.     On 19   February 2016 the Campania Region suspended the operation of the plant, which resumed on 9   March 2016. The company was required to put in place several measures and monitoring activities to minimise the effects of pollution on the environment and human health. 26.     On 26   April 2016 a further report by ARPAC again showed breaches of the relevant environmental protection regulations, including the fact that the plant had unlawfully discharged wastewater into the River Irno, presenting hydrocarbon emissions above the legislative limits. As to air emissions, ARPAC analyses on 12 and 19   April 2016 showed carbon monoxide levels significantly above the limits set by the 2012 AIA, as well as the presence of aromatic and non-methane hydrocarbons. 27.     On 13   May 2016 ARPAC confirmed the results of the above ‑ mentioned analyses, specifying that tests carried out upstream of the outfall showed no exceedance of the legislative limits for pollution, while tests carried out downstream and at the mouth of the river showed levels of cadmium, lead, copper, tin, zinc and heavy hydrocarbons significantly exceeding legislative limits. Tests also showed that the legislative limits for iron and suspended solids had been exceeded and that metals such as aluminium, manganese and lead had been found in higher concentrations downstream than upstream of the outfall. 28 .     The operation of the plant was suspended again and resumed on 13   June 2016, after the company complied with the provisional measures required by the administrative authorities. First review of the 2012 AIA 29.     Based on the findings of ARPAC’s inspections, on 24   March 2016 the Campania Region decided that the 2012 AIA had to be reviewed. It considered, in particular, that the plant was required to undergo major modernisation, including substantial structural modifications and a reassessment of its environmental impact, given its location in a densely populated residential area. The company challenged the decision of 24   March 2016 before the Salerno Section of the Campania Regional Administrative Court ( Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale, “the TAR”) in so far as it subjected the review of the 2012 AIA to a previous environmental impact assessment ( Valutazione di impatto ambientale – “EIA”) supplemented with an impact assessment ( Valutazione di incidenza – “IA”). Salute e Vita joined the proceedings. 30 .     The company also filed a request with the Campania Region for a review of the 2012 AIA based on a project to modernise the foundry. After a complex administrative procedure, during which the company filed a second modernisation project for the foundry and several supplements and observations, the Campania Region issued a negative opinion on the environmental impact of the second project (Decree no.   1 of 12   February 2018), ordered the closure of the review procedure (Decree no.   2 of 20   February 2018), revoked the 2012 AIA and ceased the plant’s operation, considering the foundry inadequate to guarantee high levels of environmental protection (Decree no.   3 of 22   February 2018). The company challenged these decisions before the RAC, with Salute e Vita again joining the proceedings. 31.     On 9   March 2018 the company submitted a third modernisation project for the foundry to the Campania Region. In response to a request filed by the company during pending judicial proceedings, the TAR issued an order, upheld by the Consiglio di Stato , suspending the effects of the Campania Region’s decisions as a precautionary measure. The Campania Region consequently reopened the review procedure to assess the company’s third project and continued to monitor the plant’s compliance with the 2012 AIA. 32 .     Following new inspections carried out by ARPAC between July and October 2018, which reported that there was still a risk of environmental damage related to violations of the BAT, the Campania Region ordered the company to comply with the conditions set out in the 2012 AIA and suspended the operation of the plant (decision no.   621819 of 4   October 2018). The company challenged this decision before the TAR, which, as a preventive measure, ordered the Campania Region to identify the specific measures the company should put in place to resume operation. 33.     On 17   January 2019, after the company put in place transitional organisational measures to improve the environmental performance of the plant, the Campania Region authorised it to resume operation. 34 .     ARPAC inspections carried out in July and October 2019 found that the transitional measures had largely been complied with, in particular because the plant had scaled down its production levels to reduce emissions by operating at a lower capacity. Moreover, the authorised emission limits had not been exceeded (report of 14 November 2019). ARPAC specified, however, that “given the context in which the plant [was] located, it [was] reasonable to deduce that even if the emissions compl[ied] with the limits set for each parameter, their total amount [was] not marginal and contribute[d], together with other existing emissions, to creating the conditions that cause[d] the nuisances referred to in the numerous complaints (for example odours and dust)”. 35.     As part of the assessment of the company’s third project, the Campania Region announced on its official website that it was reopening the review procedure. A copy of the new project was made available to the public for thirty days at the competent local office. 36.     The Campania Region decided that the project should be subject to an IA (decision no.   35439 of 17   January 2019). The company and Salute e Vita challenged this decision before the TAR. 37 .     By a judgment no. 2254 of 24   December 2019, the TAR joined their applications and allowed the complaints raised by the company in part. It observed that the Campania Region’s decision to review the 2012 AIA was legitimate since it was based on the report of 12   November 2015 whereby ARPAC had found the 2012 AIA inadequate to guarantee effective environmental protection. It further held, however, that in starting the review procedure, the Campania Region had unlawfully decided that any project submitted by the company for that purpose should be subject to an EIA supplemented with an IA. The TAR observed, in this regard, that under the relevant legal framework, the project should have been screened to assess whether the proposed modifications to the existing plant were likely to have a significant negative environmental impact and, only if so, should it have been subject to an EIA integrated with an IA. 38.     The TAR specified that, in any event, the subject of an EIA and IA would not be the plant in its current form, but the plant as it would be as a result of the proposed modifications. As to the possible outcomes of the environmental compatibility assessment, the TAR considered that a balance ( punto di equilibrio ) had to be struck between the competing interests of continued commercial activity and environmental protection. In particular, the administrative authorities were called upon to identify the best available solutions to mitigate the environmental impact. At the same time, the company’s legitimate expectations prevented the administrative authorities from imposing the relocation of the plant. The TAR also stated that the company could not be required to comply with environmental protection constraints which had been introduced when the plant already existed. 39 .     As to the fact that, after the creation of the plant, the surrounding area had been opened for residential development, the TAR admitted that it was “quite surprising” (“ stupisca non poco ”) that “in a modern and complex legal system [providing] several legal tools to reconcile the opposing interests of production property and to pursue the orderly and harmonious development of the territory” the urbanisation of an industrial area could have actually taken place. 40 .     The TAR reiterated, however, that relocation of the plant could not be imposed on the company, as the so-called “zero option” (namely the decision not to implement a project) was available only for the administrative authorities’ assessment of new plants. It added that, consequently, a negative opinion on the environmental compatibility assessment could only be legitimate if it “proposed, in a clear manner, the most suitable solutions for harmonising the existing plant with the surrounding environment”. On these grounds, the TAR annulled the negative opinion on the environmental impact of the second project (Decree no.   1 of 12   February 2018) and related Decrees nos.   2 of 20   February 2018 and 3 of 22   February 2018 (see paragraph   30 above). 41.     With regard to the assessment of the company’s third project, the TAR dismissed the company’s complaints concerning the Campania Region’s decision to subject the project to an IA, considering that decision legitimately based on the assessment that the foundry, with a productive capacity of up to 300 tonnes of ferrous material per day, could indeed impact the ecosystem of the protected area surrounding the River Irno. 42 .     With respect to the company’s complaints concerning the Campania Region’s decisions to order it to comply with the conditions set out in the 2012 AIA and suspend the operation of the plant, the TAR annulled these decisions (see paragraph   32 above) in so far as they did not clearly state the specific measures the company was required to put in place to resume the operation of the plant. 2020 review of the 2012 AIA 43.     Following the TAR’s judgment no.   2254/2019 (see paragraphs   37 -42 above ) , the Campania Region (i) gave a favourable opinion on the IA, subject to the modification of the third project to comply with certain technical requirements (decree of 16   January 2020), and (ii) requested the company to include odorous emissions in the plan for monitoring activities (decision of 25   February 2020). 44.     The Campania Region considered that the company had made the necessary improvements to the project and, by Decree no.   85 of 20   April 2020, approved it and authorised the plant to continue operating for twelve years. Decree no.   85/2020 included, inter alia , a schedule of the modernisation works, a plan for monitoring activities ( Piano di Monitoraggio e Controllo – “PMeC”), the applicable BAT and a list of the authorised air and water emissions. It established that specific monitoring of groundwater and soil had to take place within five and ten years, respectively, from its issuance. It also specified that upon completion of the modernisation works, the 2012 AIA would be revoked and that, in the interim, a transitional period would apply during which the plant had to operate in compliance with the PMeC. 45.     Following the issuance of Decree no.   85/2020, an appeal lodged by the Campania Region against the TAR’s judgment no.   2254/2019 was declared inadmissible for lack of interest (judgment no.   2669 of the Consiglio di Stato of 30   March 2021). 46.     Salute e Vita lodged a new application against Decree no.   85/2020 before the TAR. 47.     By judgment no.   157/2022, the TAR held that the association’s complaints concerning alleged shortcomings in the approved modernisation project for the foundry were generic, as it had not provided sufficient evidence to challenge the technical findings made by the administrative authorities. It also dismissed the association’s complaints concerning the project’s compliance with urban planning regulations and the precautionary principle. 48.     Salute e Vita challenged the TAR’s judgment no.   157/2022 before the Consiglio di Stato . 49 .     By judgment no.   9166 of 27   October 2022, the Consiglio di Stato dismissed the appeal. With particular regard to the SPES study, it stated that the findings did not specifically attribute the levels of contamination in the Irno Valley and the related health risks for the local population to the operation of the plant. It was therefore not possible to draw any arguments from that study to contest the fact that the project had not been subject to an EIA. Moreover, the Consiglio di Stato stated that an EIA applied only to new plants, whereas the case at hand concerned interventions of minor importance and, in particular, a technical adjustment that should have led to improvements in terms of environmental impact. The Consiglio di Stato rejected the association’s argument that a more radical modernisation project was necessary to authorise the operation of the plant, relying on the administrative authorities’ findings that such modernisation was not necessary. As to the effects of pollution stemming from the foundry, the Consiglio di Stato held that there was no evidence that the polluting substances clearly exceeded legislative limits and considered that ARPAC would have continued monitoring the situation. The Consiglio di Stato also relied on the fact that the directors of the plant “ha[d] always been acquitted of charges relating to environmental offences”. It noted, however, that “the possibility of relocating the foundry [was] being considered, given that it [was] now located in a residential area, unlike when it [had been] built”. Operation of the plant after 2020 50.     The parties disagreed as to whether the environmental shortcomings in the operation of the plant had been remedied after the issuance of Decree no.   85/2020. 51.     According to the Government, in the years 2018-2021 the plant operated at a lower capacity to reduce emissions and ARPAC’s inspections showed that the legal limits for industrial emissions had not been exceeded. The applicants strongly dispute this assertion. The results of ARPAC’s inspections for 2019 are described earlier in this judgment (see paragraph   34 above). 52 .     In its report of 7   August 2020 ARPAC indicated that the company had not yet started the works necessary to implement the project approved by Decree no.   85/2020. The inspections carried out in June and July 2020 had still therefore aimed to verify compliance with the requirements and monitoring activities set for the transitional period pending completion of the modernisation works. ARPAC considered that the plant had largely complied with these measures and that emissions had not exceeded the authorised limits. ARPAC also reported that to gather new information ( a scopo conoscitivo ), it had included mercury as a parameter in the testing of emissions from a melting furnace, notwithstanding the fact that it had not been included in the PMeC or in the BAT approved by the 2012 AIA. The report specified that the results of that testing were unreliable due to accidental spillage of the sample during transport and considered that further tests were to be carried out in the future. 53.     According to the Government, the inspections carried out in May 2021 showed that the emission limits had been complied with, except for those related to noise. 54 .     In a report dated 18   July 2022 ARPAC stated that, following numerous complaints from residents, inspections carried out on 1   July 2022 confirmed the presence of fugitive foul-smelling emissions and smoke originating from the furnace loading area and visible from the motorway. These emissions, which had not originated from emission points subject to filtering or monitoring activities, showed that the BAT had not been complied with and that new organisational measures were necessary to improve environmental performance. ARPAC also reported that the company had failed to carry out cobalt emission monitoring activities from November 2021 to April 2022. ARPAC considered that “with respect to the numerous complaints concerning smoke emissions, as also confirmed by the inspection of 1   July 2022, the company, also having regard to the plant’s age ( vetustà ) [and] current location in a densely urbanised area, characterised by a combination of industrial and residential buildings, shall operate in full compliance with the authorisations and put in place any useful procedures or technical measures to avoid environmental issues that may affect the local population”. 55.     On 20   July 2022 the Campania Region ordered the company to remedy the shortcomings identified in the ARPAC report of 18   July 2022 within thirty days. 56.     Following the order of 20   July 2022, residents and Salute e Vita continued to report foul-smelling emissions and smoke from the plant to the national authorities, alleging that these caused burning eyes and throats among the local population. Criminal proceedings Criminal proceedings no.   7997/2004 57 .     Following reports from the environmental protection and health unit of the Salerno carabinieri and the Province of Salerno, as well as criminal complaints lodged by residents, including the applicant L.F., the legal representative of the plant was charged with the abandonment of waste, discharging industrial wastewater into the River Irno without the necessary authorisation and in breach of the legislative emission limits for lead, copper and zinc, discharging wastewater onto the soil and unauthorised air emissions of gas and dust, which affected the local population. 58.     On 12   November 2004 the preliminary investigations judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari – “the GIP”) of the Salerno District Court allowed a request by the public prosecutor for the preventive seizure of the plant. 59 .     By a final judgment of 19   March 2007, the Salerno District Court took note of a plea-bargaining agreement in which the public prosecutor and the accused requested that the judge impose a sentence ( applicazione della pena su richiesta delle parti ) in relation to the above-mentioned charges – related to pollution from the plant still ongoing at the date of the judgment – and imposed a monetary penalty of 6,375   euros   (EUR). Criminal proceedings no.   5449/2007 60.     On 19   April 2011 the GIP of the Salerno District Court allowed a new request by the public prosecutor for the preventive seizure of the plant. 61 .     On 12   September 2013 the Salerno public prosecutor indicted the managing director of the plant for, inter   alia , unauthorised air emissions of lead and cadmium-based particulate matter, organic compounds and evil ‑ smelling substances, which affected the local population by alarming them about health damage, staining their homes and impairing their quality of life. 62.     Several residents, including the applicants M.C., L.F., Y.G., joined the proceedings. 63 .     By a final judgment of 18   February 2015, the Salerno District Court took note of the plea-bargaining agreement between the public prosecutor and the accused in relation to the above-mentioned charges, related to facts that had taken place until 7   May 2011 – and imposed a monetary penalty of EUR   800. Criminal proceedings no.   2191/2014 64.     On 5   July 2016 the GIP of the Salerno District Court allowed a new request by the public prosecutor for the preventive seizure of the plant. On 15   May 2018 that decision was revoked by the Salerno District Court, the judicial body responsible for reviewing preventive measures ( tribunale del riesame ), following an appeal by the directors of the foundry. 65 .     On 14   June 2018 the Salerno public prosecutor charged the directors of the plant with (i) operating the foundry since 1999 without the necessary environmental authorisations, (ii) breaching the relevant environmental protection regulations by discharging wastewater into the River Irno and producing air emissions exceeding legislative limits, and (iii) unlawfully managing and disposing of special waste. The public prosecutor also brought charges of forgery and misfeasance in public office against the ARPAC officers who had authorised the operation of the plant by means of the 2012 AIA. 66.     Salute e Vita and a group of residents, including several of the applicants, joined the proceedings. 67 .     By judgment no.   391 of 6   November 2020, the Salerno District Court acquitted the accused of all charges except those related to the uncontrolled deposit of special waste. It considered that the foundry had valid environmental authorisations (see paragraph   21 above). In addition, it held that the urbanisation of the area following the 2006 PUC and the environmental constraints introduced after the plant’s creation could not interfere with its operation, since the foundry predated those changes. Therefore, neither an EIA nor an IA had been necessary for issuing the AIA, as such instruments were only applicable to projects concerning new plants or substantial modifications of existing ones. Based on these findings, the court also acquitted the ARPAC officers of the charges of forgery and misfeasance in public office related to the issuance of the 2012 AIA. 68 .     As to the charges of breaching environmental protection regulations (from 2013 to 2020), the court clarified that these did not have to be assessed based on the alleged absence of the necessary environmental authorisations, but rather only in so far as they concerned alleged violations of the conditions set out in the 2012 AIA or were illegal per se . With particular regard to the pollution from discharges of wastewater into the River Irno, the court considered that the authorisations issued to the plant included such activity. As to the findings of excessive polluting substances in the water and air emissions, the court emphasised that in criminal proceedings, the prosecution had to prove the illegality of conduct “beyond all reasonable doubt”, meaning any technical or methodological uncertainties would favour the accused. On this basis, the court found that the defence had raised numerous doubts about the methodology used in the ARPAC reports. Specifically, the reports did not quantify aromatic and non-methane hydrocarbons, preventing conclusions from being drawn as to whether legislative limits had been exceeded. As to the presence of particulate matter in the air, the court deemed ARPAC’s monitoring activities unreliable as it had not specified the technical methods used for these activities, whose results contrasted with other analyses carried out between 2016 and 2018. As to the presence of foul-smelling emissions, the court considered that, at the relevant time, odorous emissions were not regulated by quantitative legislative limits and therefore had to be assessed on the basis of witness statements. However, the numerous complaints filed by residents were not sufficiently documented by the law-enforcement officers who had intervened immediately after the events. Given the lack of incontrovertible technical data, the court acquitted the directors of the plant on the grounds that the alleged facts had never occurred ( perché il fatto non sussiste ). The court only found sufficient evidence for the uncontrolled deposit of special waste and accordingly convicted the directors of the plant on this charge. 69 .     Following an appeal by the public prosecutor, the Salerno Court of Appeal, by a final judgment of 11   October 2022 (no.   1386), upheld the District Court’s judgment in relation to the charges of unlawful discharge of wastewater and air emissions. It stated, inter alia , that the offences concerning alleged excessive polluting substances in water and air emissions were time-barred. Additionally, it found that the results of ARPAC’s investigations, which had formed the basis of the charges, were unreliable owing to several methodological and technical shortcomings. As to the charge of unauthorised waste management, the Salerno Court of Appeal discontinued the proceedings as time-barred. Criminal proceedings no.   9906/2016 First request to discontinue the proceedings 70.     On 15   October 2016 a new set of criminal proceedings was brought against the directors of the plant. 71.     On 30   June 2017 the applicants L.L., G.B., A.P., U.D., A.R. e A.L. filed a criminal complaint against the suspects for causing death and personal injury by negligence ( omicidio colposo and lesioni personali colpose ). They requested that the national authorities assess the existence of a causal link between the various diseases contracted by them or their close relatives and environmental pollution from the plant. 72.     Salute e Vita also joined the proceedings and filed a list of 215 individuals who had contracted diseases that they claimed were linked to exposure to environmental pollution from the plant. 73.     On 23   July 2018 the Salerno public prosecutor requested that the proceedings be discontinued, citing an expert report that, after examining the medical histories of forty-one individuals – those with severe respiratory, head and neck diseases, the other diseases being considered unrelated to emission exposure – concluded that those diseases were “not incontrovertibly attributable to the inhalation of fumes and particulate matter from the plant”, given that the majority of the patients were or had been smokers. 74.     On 13   June 2019 the GIP of the Salerno District Court rejected the public prosecutor’s request following opposition by the injured parties. It observed, inter alia , that the case file contained evidence of pollution from the plant in the form of particulate matter and smoke, which necessitated further investigations to assess the seriousness and toxicity of that pollution. Request for the immediate production of evidence 75.     On 19   September 2019 the public prosecutor filed a request for the immediate production of evidence ( incidente probatorio ). 76 .     By order of 29   October 2019 the GIP of the Salerno District Court allowed the request and, on 13   November 2019, appointed experts to assess the existence of a causal link between the diseases contracted by fifty individuals – including the applicant F.F. and relatives of the applicants A.C., F.C., M.C., A.D., V.F., M.M., G.M., M.P. and A.R. – and environmental pollution from the plant. The experts were tasked with (i) determining when dust deposits from the foundry began, whether they exceeded emission limits and if they were hazardous to human health; (ii) assessing whether emission exposure might have caused or aggravated the diseases, including in conjunction with smoking. They were also required to (iii) define the pollution extent and its relevant time frame; and (iv) carry out an epidemiological study to assess the health conditions of people living in the area surrounding the plant and the existence of a causal link between any kind of disease and emissions from the plant. (a)    First expert report 77 .     In a first medical-legal expert report, dated 17   December 2021, the experts appointed by the GIP of the Salerno District Court found that it was “extremely difficult in retrospect to trace the genesis of neoplasms to a single, specific cause”. Accordingly, they could assess the existence of a possible causal link between the diseases in question and pollution exposure “only in terms of mere possibility, concrete compatibility and reasonable certainty”. In particular, they excluded such a causal link altogether in six cases; they considered that there was a mere possibility of low causal incidence in five cases (including those of the applicant F.F. and the relatives of the applicants A.C. and F.C.); a concrete compatibility of a relevant causal link in thirty ‑ five cases (including those of the relatives of the applicants V.F., M.C., M.M., M.P. and A.R.); and a reasonable certainty in four cases related to the penetration of asbestos into the respiratory system (including those of the relatives of the applicants A.D. and G.M.). 78 .     During a hearing on 8   March 2022, the experts clarified that it was impossible to establish “in terms of certainty and beyond all reasonable doubt” the existence of a causal link between the environmental context and the development of neoplastic diseases, since their origin was multi-factorial. As to the four asbestos-related cases, the experts clarified that they did not have sufficient information to identify when or how the patients had been exposed to that substance. (b)    Second expert report 79 .     In a second expert report, dated 31   December 2021, the experts appointed by the GIP of the Salerno District Court analysed the impact of the plant’s emissions since 2008. They reported that the area surrounding the plant was under “severe environmental pressure” and that residential areas were “very close to the emission sources”. They also stated that the co ‑ existence of the foundry, traffic arteries and quarries made it difficult to distinguish their ind