The Court of Appeal of Milan confirmed, for the second time, the provision with which in July the shutdown of the former Ilva blast furnaces was ordered, to be implemented by the end of October. The panel of judges, chaired by Giuseppe Ondei, also rejected the second request for suspension presented by the lawyers of the former Ilva in extraordinary administration and of AdI spa, who had requested the suspension of the decision on the blocking of the hot area in view of the Cassation hearing, to which they appealed, already set for 20 October.
"Health still wins over an economic prejudice judged to be increasingly weak and specious." This is the comment of the lawyer Ascanio Amenduni, lawyer for the citizens of Taranto who filed the civil case before the Milanese judges, business section, which led to the blockade of the hot area of the former Ilva to be implemented by the end of October. Today, in fact, the Court of Appeal of Milan rejected "the appeals proposed by Ilva Spa and Acciaierie d'Italia Spa" in extraordinary administration, with which the "suspension of the executive effectiveness of the decree" of the Court of last July had been requested.
On September 30, the parties' discussion was held before the judges. The deputy prosecutor Angelo Renna had also asked to reject the new request for suspension, after the one already rejected on 11 September. The lawyers of the former Ilva and AdI, however, had reiterated their reasons, i.e. the irreparable damage - they claimed - due to the shutdown and had asked for time until after the judgment of the Supreme Court, set for 20 October. Ascanio Amenduni, the lawyer of the citizens of Taranto, however, had explained that, since the plant was now "at its minimum", there was not even any "irreparable damage".
According to the Court, as stated in the 12-page order, "the setting of the hearing" of the Supreme Court does not change anything compared to the previous provisions which indicated the prevalence of the right to health, given the harmful emissions of the plants and the presence of asbestos. Nothing changes, we read, "compared to the past regarding the substantial protection of the interests involved" and the setting of that hearing is only "merely consequential to the presentation of the extraordinary appeals before the Supreme Court of Cassation"
The "danger" resulting from "the possible 'switching off' of the blast furnaces" must give way "with respect to the pre-eminent right to health with a view to the necessary balancing of opposing interests". The protection of "the right to health", in fact, is "in any case prevalent, in due respect of the interpretation given at a community level, as well as of the constitutional provisions themselves". This was written by the Court of Appeal of Milan, business section (judges Ondei-Del Vecchio-Cortelloni), in the provision with which it rejected the second request for suspension of the lawyers of the former Ilva and AdI, effectively confirming the July provision on the blocking of the hot area of the Taranto steel plant to be implemented by 28 October.
