Greenpeace Italy et. Al. v. ENI S.p.A., the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A.

On May 9, 2023, twelve Italian citizens and two NGOs, Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon, filed a civil action before the Court of Rome against ENI S.p.A. (“ENI”), the Ministry of Economy and Finance (“MEF”), and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. (“CDP”). The plaintiffs alleged that ENI’s fossil fuel production and insufficient decarbonization strategy were incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement and international climate science, contributing significantly to global warming and associated risks to health, safety, property, and other fundamental rights protected by the Italian Constitution and international human rights law. MEF and CDP, as majority shareholders of ENI, were accused of failing to use their controlling influence to align ENI’s strategy with climate targets. The claim sought a declaration of joint and several liability for past and future harm, and an order requiring ENI, MEF, and CDP to adopt an industrial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2030 from a 2020 baseline, in line with the Paris Agreement. Plaintiffs also requested the imposition of an astreinte (coercive fine) for non-compliance, but did not seek monetary damages for their own losses. The defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the claims intruded upon political and legislative functions, relied on non-justiciable interests, and concerned activities partly conducted abroad. They invoked a February 2024 decision in A Sud et al. v. Italy in which the Court of Rome had declared a similar climate claim inadmissible for absolute lack of jurisdiction. In June 2024, the plaintiffs petitioned the Civil Court of Rome to stay proceedings and referred the question of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Cassation through a regolamento di giurisdizione. In its July 21, 2025 decision, the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that Italian civil courts have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court distinguished this action from A Sud et al., noting that it targeted a private company and its shareholders in their capacity as controlling stakeholders, rather than the State as legislator or administrator. It held that determining whether ENI’s conduct violates constitutional and international obligations to protect fundamental rights does not constitute an impermissible intrusion into legislative or political functions, but falls within the competence of civil courts adjudicating extra-contractual liability. The Court emphasized that climate-related claims may be framed as common tort actions, including against private actors, where they allege harm to constitutionally protected rights. On territorial jurisdiction, the Court found that the alleged damage—impairment of life, health, and well-being from climate impacts—occurred in Italy, where the plaintiffs reside, even if the emissions originated partly abroad. It applied EU private international law rules to conclude that Italian courts have jurisdiction over claims against an Italian-domiciled defendant for damage suffered in Italy, and that ENI, as the group’s parent company, could be held responsible for group-wide strategies contributing to the harm. While the Court did not address liability or remedies, its ruling removes the main procedural obstacle to such cases in Italy, paving the way for the Civil Court of Rome to examine claims for injunctive relief, damages, and potentially reparations for climate-related harm. The case will now return to the Civil Court of Rome for examination on the merits.