Ravenna

Toscana

Reggio Calabria

Umbria

Reggio Emilia

Marche

Ragusa

Lazio

Rieti

Abruzzo

Roma

Molise

Rimini

Campania

Rovigo

Puglia

Salerno

Basilicata

Siena

Calabria

Sondrio

Sicilia

La Spezia

Sardegna

Siracusa

Agrigento

Sassari

Alessandria

Sud Sardegna

Ancona

Savona

Ascoli Piceno

Taranto

L'Aquila

Teramo

Arezzo

Trento

Asti

Torino

Avellino

Trapani

Bari

Terni

Bergamo

Trieste

Biella

Treviso

Belluno

Udine

Benevento

Varese

Bologna

Verbano-Cusio-Ossola

Brindisi

Vercelli

Brescia

Venezia

Barletta-Andria-Trani

Vicenza

Bolzano

Verona

Cagliari

Viterbo

Campobasso

Vibo Valentia

Caserta

Chieti

Caltanissetta

Cuneo

Como

Cremona

Cosenza

Catania

Catanzaro

Enna

Forlì-Cesena

Ferrara

Foggia

Firenze

Fermo

Frosinone

Genova

Gorizia

Grosseto

Imperia

Isernia

Crotone

Lecco

Lecce

Livorno

Lodi

Latina

Lucca

Monza e Brianza

Macerata

Messina

Milano

Mantova

Modena

Massa-Carrara

Italy

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

On September 23, 2024, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) opened proceedings PS12709 against Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd, the Irish company that operates the SHEIN online stores in Europe, concerning environmental claims disseminated on the Italian SHEIN website and related web pages since at least 2023. The claims concerned the circularity of production, product quality, and responsible consumption (the #SHEINTHEKNOW, evoluSHEIN and "Social Responsibility" sections), the share of recycled materials in the "evoluSHEIN by Design" collection, and the company's decarbonization targets: a 25% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2 and 3) by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. In its decision of July 29, 2025, the Authority found the claims vague, generic, false or misleading, and lacking relevant information. 

With regard to the climate targets, the Authority noted that, by the company's own account, more than 99% of its emissions fall under Scope 3 and are generated by suppliers, transportation and other sources outside its direct control, and that its total greenhouse gas emissions rose from 6.04 million tonnes of CO2 in 2021 to 9.17 million in 2022 and 16.68 million in 2023, an 82% increase over 2022. It concluded that presenting a real and effective decarbonization commitment was confusing and misleading. The Authority held that the conduct constituted an unfair commercial practice under Articles 20, 21(1)(b), and 22(1)-(2) of the Consumer Code, prohibited its continuation, imposed an administrative fine of EUR 1,000,000, and ordered the company to report on the measures taken within 90 days.

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. 

Following the July 21, 2025 order of the Supreme Court of Cassation on jurisdiction, the proceedings have resumed before the Civil Court of Rome for examination on the merits. The next hearing is scheduled for February 11, 2027. No decision on liability or remedies has been issued to date.

On April 19, 2021, as part of a campaign on the influence of fossil fuel companies on Italian universities, Greenpeace Italy requested access to the framework agreements, contracts, conventions and collaboration agreements concluded in 2019-2021 between the Polytechnic University of Turin and ENI S.p.A. and its group companies (Versalis, Eni Rewind, Eni Corporate University and Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei), together with information on the degree and postgraduate courses and other funding provided by those companies. On May 21, 2021, the University denied access, arguing that documents concerning academic agreements and financial relationships did not contain environmental information. Greenpeace challenged the denial before the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont. 

On April 19, 2022 (judgment No. 379/2022), the Court annulled the denial and ordered disclosure within 20 days, holding that environmental information covers not only data directly related to the environment but also choices, actions and activities that directly or indirectly involve the environment and its protection. ENI and the University appealed, and the Council of State suspended the judgment pending appeal (orders No. 2695/2022 and No. 2701/2022). 

On July 6, 2023 (judgment No. 6611/2023, Seventh Section), the Council of State dismissed both appeals. It held that the right of access to environmental information must be interpreted as broadly as possible and extends to activities that affect the environment only indirectly. In finding that agreements between a university and "a company that is notoriously a leader in the energy sector" concern environmental information, the Court relied on ENI's own public statements that it is committed to the energy transition and to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, described the energy transition as "one of the essential areas of current environmental problems", and noted that energy is expressly listed among the environmental factors in Legislative Decree No. 195/2005. It further held that generic claims of commercial confidentiality relating to corporate strategies cannot override the right of access, and that disclosure of corporate funding of research grants, scholarships and degree courses could only have a positive effect on the quality of university education. 

On June 5, 2021, environmental justice NGO A Sud and more than 200 plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Italian government, by failing to take actions necessary to meet Paris Agreement temperature targets, is violating fundamental rights, including the right to a stable and safe climate. The action, part of a campaign called Giudizio Universale (The Last Judgment), seeks a declaration that the government's inaction is contributing to the climate emergency and a court order to reduce emissions 92% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. According to an executive summary of the claim released by the plaintiffs, the government's climate obligations stem from the Paris Agreement, EU regulations, and IPCC reports. The human right to a stable and safe climate is based on guarantees in Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union (guarantee of fundamental rights), and Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, among others. These rights violations give rise to non-contractual liability of the Italian government under Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code. 

On December 14, 2021, the first hearing was held before the Civil Court of Rome in the form of written notes. In its reply, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, represented by the “Avvocatura Generale dello Stato” (state lawyers), requested the Court to declare the complaint inadmissible and, in any case, to dismiss the applicants’ claims on the merits. On the matter of fact, the reply describes in depth the State’s policies and endeavors on climate change. On the matter of law, the reply deals with: (i) the absence of jurisdiction of the civil judge over activities pertaining to the legislative and executive powers of the State; (ii) the lack of standing rights of the applicants; (iii) the impossibility of placing an individual responsibility on the Italian State for climate change and its impact. 


The applicants sent their rebuttal notes on January 14, 2022. The second hearing (the first oral hearing) has been held on 21 June 2022. The parties presented their legal arguments before the judge. The judge scheduled the next hearing for September 13, 2023.

Following the final hearing on 13 September 2023, the Judge of the Second Civil Section of the Court of Rome requested the parties' closing statements and proceeded with the ruling.

In its judgment of February 26, 2024, the Court declared the claims inadmissible for absolute lack of jurisdiction (‘difetto assoluto di giurisdizione’). 

The Court applied the principle of separation of powers and the related case law. The Court pointed out that the claim entails a review of the sphere of powers that the Constitution reserves to the legislature. 

In the Court's opinion, "the interest for which compensation is claimed under Articles 2043 and 2051 of the Italian Civil Code does not fall within the category of legally protected subjective interests, since decisions relating to the methods and timescales for managing the phenomenon of anthropogenic climate change - which involve discretionary socio-economic assessments and in terms of cost-benefit in the various sectors of human life - fall within the sphere of attribution of the political bodies and cannot be sanctioned in the present proceedings. With the proposed civil action, the plaintiffs essentially ask the Court to annul the measures, including primary and secondary regulatory measures (...) that constitute the implementation of the political choices of the legislature and the government for the achievement of the objectives assumed at international and European level (in the short and long term) in violation of a cardinal principle of the order represented by the principle of separation of powers" (unofficial English translation, p. 12 of the judgment).  

The plaintiffs appealed the first-instance judgment of the Civil Court of Rome (decided on February 26, 2024 and filed on March 6, 2024) before the Court of Appeal of Rome. October 21, 2026 is the date of the hearing before the Court of Appeal, not the date of a ruling; in April 2025 the hearing was postponed to October 2026. On appeal, the plaintiffs rely on the July 21, 2025 order of the Supreme Court of Cassation (Joint Civil Sections, No. 20381/2025) in Greenpeace Italy et al. v. ENI, which held that climate-related claims for non-contractual liability fall within the jurisdiction of the civil courts. In that order, however, the Supreme Court distinguished A Sud et al. v. Italy on the ground that it targeted the State as legislator and administrator rather than a private company and its controlling shareholders.

Geography

Italy

Recent cases