Monza e Brianza

Vibo Valentia

Abruzzo

Macerata

Molise

Messina

Campania

Milano

Puglia

Mantova

Basilicata

Modena

Calabria

Massa-Carrara

Sicilia

Matera

Sardegna

Napoli

Agrigento

Novara

Alessandria

Nuoro

Ancona

Oristano

Ascoli Piceno

Palermo

L'Aquila

Piacenza

Arezzo

Padova

Asti

Pescara

Avellino

Perugia

Bari

Pisa

Bergamo

Pordenone

Biella

Prato

Belluno

Parma

Benevento

Pistoia

Bologna

Pesaro e Urbino

Brindisi

Pavia

Brescia

Potenza

Barletta-Andria-Trani

Ravenna

Bolzano

Reggio Calabria

Cagliari

Reggio Emilia

Campobasso

Ragusa

Caserta

Rieti

Chieti

Roma

Caltanissetta

Rimini

Cuneo

Rovigo

Como

Salerno

Cremona

Siena

Cosenza

Sondrio

Catania

La Spezia

Catanzaro

Siracusa

Enna

Sassari

Forlì-Cesena

Sud Sardegna

Ferrara

Savona

Foggia

Taranto

Firenze

Teramo

Fermo

Trento

Frosinone

Torino

Genova

Trapani

Piemonte

Gorizia

Terni

Val d'Aoste

Grosseto

Trieste

Lombardia

Imperia

Italy

Reducing final energy consumption by a total of 10 Mtoe by 2030


reaching a 28% share of renewables in total energy consumption by 2030, and a 55% share of renewables in electricity consumption by 2030


phasing out the use of coal in electricity generation by 2025.


Reduction in GHG for all non-ETS sectors by 33%.&nbsp;



To increase the share of energy from RES in the gross final consumption of energy for heating and cooling&nbsp; by +1.3% per year (indicative).&nbsp;



To increase the share of energy from RES in the gross final consumption of energy in the transport sector by 22%.



To increase the share of energy from RES in the gross final consumption of energy by 30 per cent.

21% cut in GHG emissions by 2020 compared with a 2005 baseline

6.5% cut in GHG emissions by 2008-2012 compared with a 1990 baseline

Primary energy consumption cut by 24% by 2020

Renewable energy is 19-20% final consumption by 2020

17% domestic consumption from renewables by 2020

No less than .2 KW solar energy capacity for new residential units by N/A compared with a business as usual scenario

3,000 MW total installed PV power  by 2016

0.1 Mtoe reduction in primary energy consumption (50% from natural gas reduction) by 2002, then 0.5 by 2003, 0.9 by 2004, 1.2 by 2005, 1.6 by 2006 compared with a business as usual scenario

0.1 Mtoe reduction in primary energy consumption (50% from natural gas reduction) by 2005, then 0.2 by 2006, 0.4 by 2007, 1.0 by 2008, 1.4 2009 compared with a business as usual scenario

1% biofuel and renewable energy in total fuel by 2005, then 2.5% by 2010

40,000 ton reduction of polluting emissions

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.

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.

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).  

A Sud appealed the court ruling, but a new ruling will not be made until October 21, 2026. 

Italy

Recent cases