Former Ilva, hot area remains at a standstill: the Court of Cassation rejects the appeal

The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal against the decree with which the Milan Court of Appeal ordered the shutdown of the hot area of ​​the former Ilva in Taranto, the central part of the steel factory. The decree of the judges of Milan therefore remains valid. The decision was taken by the United Civil Sections after the hearing on 20 October. The Court of Appeal's decree dates back to 27 July, giving the company 90 days to comply with it, and was confirmed by the Milan judges on two different occasions: hearings on 9 and 30 September. Industrial plant harmful to human health due to the emission of dust into the atmosphere and the presence of asbestos in the blast furnaces: these are the central reasons of the Court of Appeal in its decree.

Two extraordinary appeals were presented against the decree

The companies Ilva and Acciaierie d'Italia spa-Acciaierie d'Italia holding have presented two separate extraordinary appeals to the Supreme Court against the decree, requesting its annulment. And two counter-appeals in support of the measure of the judges of Milan were instead presented by the citizens of Taranto which were constituted in a judgment held over the years between the Court of Milan - where Acciaierie d'Italia has its registered office - the European Court of Justice of Luxembourg, the Court of Appeal of Milan and finally the Court of Cassation in Rome.

Cassation: "Data acquired maximum health protection"

"The maximum level of protection afforded by the Constitutional Charter to life, health and the environment, especially after the constitutional reform of articles 9 and 41, but already before with articles 2 and 32 of the Constitution, is an established fact". The Court of Cassation says this in the provision with which, rejecting the appeals of Ilva and Acciaierie d'Italia, it effectively confirms the decree of the Court of Appeal of Milan which in July ordered the shutdown of the hot area of ​​the Taranto plant because it was polluting. For the Court of Cassation, "the limits (re)drawn by art. 41 of the Constitution to the freedom of private economic initiative are evident, which 'cannot be carried out in conflict with social utility or in such a way as to cause damage to health, the environment, safety, freedom, human dignity'. As for the right to work, indisputably of primary value in a democratic Republic which is founded on it (art. 1 of the Constitution), the commitment of the Republic not only assumes a to recognize 'all citizens have the right to work', but also - and above all - to promote 'the conditions that make this right effective' (art. 4 Constitution)". For the Court of Cassation, "on closer inspection, the right to life and health (as well as to a healthy environment) and the right to work cannot be opposed and must not come into conflict, since work carried out in degrading or dangerous conditions would not even deserve protection: the right to work that the State must promote is a right to healthy and safe work, not already subjected to unacceptable conditions to safeguard its maintenance, which must however be supported and pursued with appropriate economic-social policies".