‘Urgenda-Style’ Strategic Climate Change Litigation in Italy: A Tale of Human Rights and Torts?

Abstract

Abstract This contribution addresses the first strategic climate change litigation filed against the Italian State, the Giudizio Universale case. Giudizio Universale’s legal architecture is largely akin to other landmark cases filed in Europe, such as Urgenda in The Netherlands and Klimaatzaak in Belgium. Accordingly, Giudizio Universale is grounded on the state’s breach of international and EU obligations, the encroachment of human rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Italian Constitution, and the consequent attribution of domestic tort liability to the state under the Italian Civil Code. This article thus examines the main arguments raised in Giudizio Universale in light of the underlying domestic human rights and tort liability regimes. It first investigates the interplay between the breach of climate change obligations and human rights infringement as presented in the complaint to understand whether, and to what extent, Italian courts could give deference to an ‘Urgenda-style’ claim. Second, it unpacks the existing interpretation of tort liability as applied to state liability vis-à-vis its citizens by Italian courts. Third, it factors Giudizio Universale in the recent Italian Constitutional reform, which explicitly introduced the protection of the environment, biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as a reference to the ‘interests of future generations’, into the fundamental principles of the Italian Constitution. Overall, the article concludes that several limitations exist in the Italian legal system in the pursuance of strategic climate litigation against the state for its (in)action against climate change. One of the merits of the Giudizio Universale case, however, is that it challenges these limitations to provide another suitable tool for ensuring protection against the climate emergency.