003-8145389-11413367

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 028 (2025)   30.01.2025   Prolonged inaction by Italian State on widespread dumping put Terra dei   Fuochi residents’ lives at risk   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy (applications   nos. 51567/14 and three others) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there   had been:   a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned dumping, burying or burning of waste on private land, often carried out by   organised criminal groups, in the parts of the Campania region known as the Terra dei Fuochi, where   some 2.9 million people live. Increased rates of cancer and pollution of groundwater had been   recorded in the area.   The Court found in particular that the Italian State had failed to deal with such a serious situation   with the diligence and expedition required – despite having known about the problem for many   years – specifically in assessing the problem, preventing its continuation, and communicating to the   affected public.   The Court held, unanimously, under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments), that   Italy had to draw up a comprehensive strategy to address the Terra dei Fuochi situation, set up an   independent monitoring mechanism, and establish a public information platform. The time-limit for   this is two years, during which the pending 36 related applications from around 4,700 applicants will   be adjourned.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link).   Principal facts   The applicants are 41 Italian nationals, who live in Caserta or Naples provinces in Campania (Italy),   and five organisations based in Campania.   Terra dei Fuochi (“Land of Fires”) refers to an area of 90 municipalities in Campania with a   population of around 2.9 million. It describes the effects of the illegal dumping, burying and/or   uncontrolled abandonment of hazardous, special and urban waste on private land, frequently   combined with its burning, which had taken place there. The applicants all asserted that they had   suffered directly or indirectly from the effects of illegal waste disposal, and that this problem had   been known to the authorities for a significant period.   According to the latest information, a total of seven parliamentary commissions of inquiry have been   set up into illegality in waste management. Their findings included the following:   There were multiple illegal dumping sites in the provinces of Caserta and Naples, particularly in the   countryside around Aversa and the Domizio-Phlegrean coast. The illegal waste disposal was   controlled by organised criminal groups. Considerable amounts of waste had been transported from   across Italy. The problem had been known to the authorities since 1988.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   One method of disposal was dumping and burying the waste in illegal tips, which were frequently   quarries, waterways, or large pits that were sometimes dug on agricultural land and then covered   up, with the land continuing to be used for agriculture thereafter. It was noted that when waste was   not dumped it was sometimes mixed with other substances to be used, for example, as material in   construction or as compost, with negative impacts on groundwater. Regarding auto disposal, one   report observed in Marcianise and Castelvolturno “actual mountains of car tyres [going] up in   smoke”.   The Northern Naples countryside had become “a receptacle for waste of every kind”. One report   referred to Campania’s being treated as “the dustbin of Italy” (la pattumiera d’Italia). Another stated   that it was an “environmental disaster ... comparable only to the spread of the plague in the   seventeenth century”.   Dioxin contamination had resulted in the pollution of a considerable area. An exceptional   concentration of heavy metals had been observed in certain areas, such as around Villa Literno.   There was “persistent poisoning” of the soil.   Among other findings regarding health, it was noted that rates of cancer had greatly increased in the   area. Italian and International reports, such as from The Lancet Oncology,   Epidemiologia&Prevenzione, the Italian Senate, and the World Health Organisation, confirmed   health outcomes outside of Italian norms in the area.   The parliamentary commissions highlighted the legal issues around dealing with the pollution,   including deterrence being “practically non-existent”, a lack of “necessary firmness” in the State   response, the near impossibility to secure convictions for environmental crimes, and, among other   things, the short limitation periods. They were critical of the clean-up plans and the long delays in   taking action.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) the applicants   complained, in particular, that the Italian authorities had been aware of, but had not taken measures   to protect them from the illegal dumping, burying and burning of hazardous waste in their areas;   and that the authorities had failed to provide them with information in that regard.   They also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Mario Cannavacciuolo also complained   under the procedural limb of Article 2.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on various dates between   April 2014 and 15 April 2015.   ClientEarth; MacroCrimes the Forum for Human Rights and Social Justice of Newcastle University,   the Newcastle Environmental Regulation Research Group of Newcastle University, Let’s Do It! Italy,   and Legambiente (in a single submission); Professor M. Carducci and Mr V. Lorubbio (Centro di   Ricerca Euro Americano sulle Politiche Costituzionali - CEDEUAM); Professor F. Bianchi (Pisa Institute   of Clinical Physiology); and Mr G. D’Alisa (University of Coimbra) and Professor M. Armiero (KTH   Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm) were given leave to make submissions as third parties.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,   Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),   Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus),   Tim Eicke (the United Kingdom),   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Raffaele Sabato (Italy),   Frédéric Krenc (Belgium),   and also Ilse Freiwirth , Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court rejected, by 6 votes to 1, the applicant associations’ applications as they were not victims   of the Terra dei Fuochi pollution under Articles 2 and 8 (incompatible ratione personae with the   Convention).   Several of the individual applicants did not live in the officially listed affected municipalities, so the   Court rejected their applications (incompatible ratione personae). As for some of the other   applications, they were declared inadmissible for not complying with the then six-month time-limit   for lodging an application with the Court.   Articles 2 and 8   Accepting that there was a “sufficiently serious, genuine and ascertainable” risk to life, which could   be qualified as “imminent”, the Court held that this case came under the aegis of Article 2. In line   with a “precautionary approach” and the length of time that the pollution problem had been known   about, the Court held that the State could not rely on the fact that the precise effects the pollution   might have had on the health of a particular applicant could not be ascertained to avoid its   protective duty to the remaining applicants.   Several duties had fallen on the State as a result of this crisis:   The Court held that there was insufficient evidence of a systematic, coordinated and comprehensive   response on the part of the authorities in dealing with the Terra dei Fuochi situation. Progress had   been glacial in assessing the pollution impact when expedition had been necessary. It noted a   generalised problem of coordination and attribution of responsibilities in Campania regarding   decontamination. It was impossible to get an overall sense of where had yet to be decontaminated.   The Government stated that a large number of actions had been taken to investigate the health   impacts of the pollution, such as strengthening cancer screening. However, most of these measures   had only been taken after 2013. In view of the delays characterising the authorities’ response, they   had not acted with the required diligence in their investigation of the health-related impact of the   Terra dei Fuochi pollution.   The Government provided only seven examples of purportedly related convictions for   environmental crimes. Given the long duration of the crisis, it was impossible for the Court to gain an   overview from just those submissions. It was not satisfied, therefore, that the State had taken the   necessary criminal-justice action to combat the illegal disposal of waste in the Terra dei Fuochi area.   The Court added that the Italian authorities appeared to have been rather slow to address the   systematic shortcomings affecting the waste-management system in Campania.   Given the magnitude, complexity, and seriousness of the situation, a comprehensive and accessible   communication strategy, in order to inform the public proactively about the potential or actual   health risks, and about the action being taken to manage these risks, was necessary. This had not   been delivered. Indeed, some of the information had for considerable periods been covered by State   secrecy.   Overall, the Court found that the Italian authorities had not approached the Terra dei Fuochi   problem with the diligence warranted by the seriousness of the situation. The Italian State had not   done all that was required of it to protect the applicants’ lives.   Given that the arguments under Article 8 were the same as those already decided on under Article 2,   the Court held that it was not necessary to examine this complaint separately.   Other articles   The Court held that it had examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications and   that there was no need to give a separate ruling under Article 13 and Article 2 (procedural limb).   Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments)   Under Article 46, the Court, taking into account the persistent nature of the problem and the   systemic shortcomings that have characterised the State’s response to it, coupled with the large   number of people it has affected and is capable of affecting, and the urgent need to grant them   speedy and appropriate redress, considered it appropriate to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in   the present case.   The Court indicated that Italy had to draw up a comprehensive strategy bringing together existing or   envisaged measures to address the Terra dei Fuochi problem; it had to set up an independent   monitoring mechanism, including members free of any institutional affiliation with the State   authorities; and it had to establish a single, public information platform drawing together all relevant   information concerning the Terra dei Fuochi problem.   The above measures had to be implemented within a time-limit of two years of the current   judgment becoming final.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court reserved pronouncing on non-pecuniary damage for a period of no later than two years   after the present judgment had become final. The Court held that Italy was to pay the applicants the   amounts set out in the judgment in respect of costs and expenses.   Separate opinions   Judge Krenc expressed a concurring opinion. Judge Serghides expressed a partly concurring and   partly dissenting opinion. They are annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X   (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4