Legambiente et al. v. Ministry of Ecological Transition et al.; Veneto Po Delta Regional Park Authority et al. v. Ministry of Ecological Transition et al.

On July 27, 2021, Italian NGOs — including Legambiente, LIPU-BirdLife Italy, WWF Italy, and Greenpeace Italy — challenged a ministerial decree authorizing the Teodorico gas field development, located off the Po Delta in the Adriatic Sea. The project, promoted by Po Valley Operations Pty Ltd, involved the installation of a platform and drilling operations adjacent to a newly designated marine site of Community importance, an area considered crucial for species such as the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) and the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). The area also lies near the Po Delta, recognized in 2015 as a UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Reserve. In a separate but connected proceeding, the Veneto Po Delta Regional Park Authority, the Province of Rovigo, and several municipalities also contested the decree.

The plaintiffs argued that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was inadequate and failed to account for the establishment of the marine protected area, the potential harm to protected species and habitats, the risks of subsidence linked to gas extraction, and the impacts on local fisheries. They further claimed that the assessment omitted consideration of the project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and its inconsistency with Italy’s climate objectives.

On November 27, 2024, the TAR Lazio annulled the ministerial authorization in both proceedings. The court found that the authorities had violated Article 5 of D.P.R. 357/1997 and Article 6 of the Habitats Directive by not conducting a proper “appropriate assessment” of the project’s effects on a proposed site of Community importance, despite the fact that the Italian government had already formally transmitted the site designation to the European Commission prior to issuing the authorization. EU and national law require such assessments to cover both formally designated sites and those proposed for designation. The court did not rule on the remaining claims, including those related to climate impacts, as the annulment on procedural and habitat protection grounds was sufficient to dispose of the case.