Thread by @FilippoFantozzi

#ClimateLitigation developments in Italy 🇮🇹 What happened at the hearings held by the Civil Court of Rome in #GiudizioUniversale, the case targeting Italy’s failure to fight climate change? 🧵Thread:

1/10 In the course of the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs submitted evidence on both the gravity of the climate emergency and the inadequate measures taken by the State: inaction exposes people to dangerous climate change and triggers a violation of fundamental human rights⚠️

2/10 However, the State described the climate case brought by @ASudOnlus as “an intrusion” undermining the power of political institutions. It claimed full immunity for its conduct, i.e. the impossibility for the Court to evaluate the lawfulness of its climate action.

3/10 The plaintiffs' lawyers strongly refuted this: the Italian Constitution recognises that citizens are holders of rights that always deserve judicial protection. And courts across the globe have already held that the State’s climate failures = violation of people's rights.

4/10 As pointed out by lawyer @saltaluca73, in many European jurisdictions "not only judges were able to assess the adequacy of national climate policies, but they ordered States to improve their reduction targets".

5/10 The State has also argued that reliance on scientific evidence (to assess the State's conduct in the context of climate change) would "interfere with the unquestionable sphere of political discretion".

6/10 But this doesn’t hold up – in the past, State lawyers have argued before the Italian Constitutional Court that science is crucial to prevent public authorities from taking arbitrary or ineffective decisions when citizens are exposed to danger.

7/10 In particular, the plaintiffs' lawyers point out that scientific findings *limit* State discretion (Law 132/2016, Article 3 no.1 (c) states that scientific data "constitute official and binding reference for the activities within the competence of public authorities").

8/10 Moreover, according to @maricadipierri, plaintiff and spokesperson: "the State has not produced scientifically verifiable evidence on the effectiveness of its climate mitigation actions, nor has refuted the evidence presented by the plaintiffs.”

9/10 According to @Luca_Mercalli, climatologist and plaintiff: "The climate emergency is there for all to see […] Today, more than ever, it is essential that public institutions listen to science and act decisively to avoid a dramatic and irreversible climate scenario".

10/10 Follow @il__giudizio and @ASudOnlus to learn about the latest developments in the case.

Additional info and documents (also in English): giudiziouniversale.eu

Sources:
bit.ly/3QKFHUF
bit.ly/3U78kOJ
bit.ly/3qAoseb
bit.ly/3BEYYT2