Polluting Emissions and Ordinary Judge's Jurisdiction: Commentary on Order No. 18472 of 2024

The recent Order No. 18472 of July 5, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important clarification regarding jurisdiction in disputes concerning polluting emissions between private parties. The decision emphasizes the competence of the ordinary judge in handling claims for injunctions and damages, even in the presence of specific environmental regulations.

Context of the Ruling

In the dispute under examination, the appellant requested the defendant's conviction to carry out remediation works to prevent the migration of polluting substances, as well as compensation for damages to property and health. The Court ruled that, despite Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006 providing for interventions by public administration for the removal of harmful situations, this does not preclude the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge. In particular, the Court stated that:

Polluting emissions - Dispute between private parties - Claim for injunction and damages - Jurisdiction of the ordinary judge - Existence - Execution of environmental remediation works pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006 - Relevance - Exclusion - Basis. In matters of polluting emissions, a dispute between private parties falls within the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge where the plaintiff has requested the defendant's conviction to carry out works suitable for the remediation of areas and to prevent the migration of polluting substances, as well as compensation for damages to property, business, reputation, and health, without the provision of Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006 concerning the possibility of intervention by the Public Administration for the elimination of the harmful situation being relevant. This constitutes an enhancement of protection levels, which consequently cannot lead to a retreat of jurisdiction in matters of subjective rights.

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling offers a clear perspective on the legal dynamics at play, highlighting how environmental pollution disputes must be handled with particular attention. The main implications of the ruling can be summarized in the following points:

• Clarity on jurisdiction: The ordinary judge has the power to decide on claims for damages and injunctions concerning polluting emissions.
• Enhancement of protection levels: Environmental regulations do not reduce private subjective rights but rather strengthen them.
• Consistency with jurisprudence: The decision aligns with previous case law that confirms the competence of the ordinary judge in similar disputes.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 18472 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in protecting the rights of private parties regarding polluting emissions. It reaffirms the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge and underscores the importance of ensuring adequate compensation and necessary injunctive measures. Environmental disputes require a sensitive and informed approach, and this ruling provides a clear legal framework that can serve as a guide for future litigation in this area.