We recall, in fact, that Greenpeace (and other interested parties) had brought an action before the Court of Rome to ascertain the failure of ENI and the Italian State to comply with their obligations to combat climate change and to obtain from them compensation for the consequent pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the community.

1. The objections raised by the respondents

The respondents raised several preliminary procedural objections, the most significant of which were the following:

• the lack of absolute jurisdiction, in view of the constitutional role reserved to the State-legislator in environmental policymaking;
• the lack of jurisdiction of the Italian judge, given the transnational dimension of the alleged harm;
• the lack of jurisdiction of the ordinary court, which, according to the respondents, should have been replaced by the administrative court.

In response to these objections, pending the ordinary proceedings, the plaintiffs filed an appeal for a preliminary ruling, asking the Court to declare that the Italian ordinary court had jurisdiction.

2. The admissibility of the petition

The Court of Cassation first addressed the admissibility of the petition, which had been lodged by the same claimants who had initiated the proceedings on the merits. The Court found it admissible on two grounds:

• first, the reasonable doubt arising in relation to the external limits of jurisdiction in complex cases of this kind;
• second, the novelty of the legal issues involved, which lack consolidated precedents in the Court’s jurisprudence.

3. Comparison with the earlier case and confirmation of jurisdiction

The Court held that Italian judicial authority has jurisdiction in the present case, stressing that the current proceedings constitute a standard tort action for the infringement of the right to life and to private and family life. The judge’s task will thus be limited to verifying whether the sources of law relied upon by the claimants impose a duty of conduct upon the respondents, which would give rise to tortious liability.

On this basis, the Court found no infringement upon the legislative or administrative spheres, nor any reason to declare a lack of absolute jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court confirmed Italian jurisdiction by contrasting the current case with an earlier action brought by Greenpeace and ReCommon, where the claim was filed against the Italian Prime Minister for its alleged failure to adopt adequate legislative or administrative climate protection measures. In that case, the Court had denied jurisdiction, holding that the claim interfered with the discretionary powers of the political branches and was therefore non-justiciable.

In the present case, however:

• the claim clearly qualifies as a tort action under Articles 2043, 2050, 2051, and 2058 of the Italian Civil Code, based on ENI’s failure to reduce climate-altering emissions in violation of international obligations (including the Paris Agreement);
• the Ministry of Economy and Finance and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti were sued not in their public capacity, but as major shareholders of ENI, allegedly co-responsible for company strategies inconsistent with international climate goals.

4. On the further objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Italian courts

Another key objection raised by the respondents concerned the lack of jurisdiction of the Italian courts over damages allegedly suffered abroad. The Court of Cassation rejected this argument, noting that:

• the liability asserted concerns the controlling company (ENI), based in Italy, for group-wide strategies;
• the conduct in question occurred in Italy, as it stems from decisions taken by ENI’s corporate governing bodies;
• even the initial damage (as defined under the autonomous interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union) materialised in the claimants’ place of residence, i.e. in Italy.

Accordingly, under Articles 4(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, jurisdiction is correctly established in Italy, both as the place of the event giving rise to the damage and as the place where the damage occurred.

5. Final remarks

Through this landmark decision, the Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation have affirmed the possibility for private individuals to bring tort claims against publicly owned companies and the role of the ordinary judiciary as a guarantor of fundamental rights in complex global contexts, such as the ecological transition.

Moreover, this decision positions itself within the broader trend of international climate change litigation, but constitutes an absolute novelty in the Italian legal landscape: it is the first ruling decided by the Joint Sections of the Supreme Court concerning damages stemming from practices potentially causing climate change.

The order already provides critical guidance for several legal fields – including the insurance sector – by establishing the following key points:

1. Claims in the context of climate change litigation fall within the scope of tort liability;
2. Liability may extend not only to the legal entity directly involved in climate-harmful conduct, but also to its shareholders, and ultimately, to the State;
3. The order outlines the possible emergence of a new category of liability borne by corporate executives of legal persons engaged in practices with a potential negative impact on the climate.

To read the full judgment, click here.