Ilva: a political U-turn

A 2013 ruling by the Constitutional Court provided the legal basis that has kept Ilva afloat in recent years. Faced with the Taranto Public Prosecutor’s Office, which had challenged the 2012 decree-law ensuring the plant’s continued operation as a site of national strategic interest, the Constitutional Court ruled that no right is absolute: the right to health and the right to work must be balanced against one another. In the Ilva case, this balance was achieved through compliance with the environmental authorisation. However, in 2022, the Constitution was amended, adding to Article 41 that the freedom of enterprise ‘shall not be exercised in conflict with the public interest or in such a way as to cause harm to health or the environment’, whereas previously it had been limited to ‘safety, freedom and human dignity’. Then, in 2024, the European Court of Justice ruled that the right to health takes precedence above all else, and that if this right was endangered, operations at the Ilva plant had to be suspended.

The Milan Court of Appeal has now ordered the suspension of operations in the ‘hot zone’ until the 2,000 kilos of asbestos present have been removed and emission limits brought under control. The court notes that the 2017 environmental plan (under the Renzi government) required the removal of asbestos by 2023, but the 2025 Hague Agreement removed this requirement. This is a mistake by the Meloni government, which will resume talks with the trade unions on Tuesday, but which has only one way out to save Ilva: a decree-law that overrides the judges’ ruling. It is clear, however, that in this never-ending crisis, it is easier for politicians to use the judiciary as an excuse than to make industrial policy decisions. The order is not unexpected but predictable. There was time, but the preference was to use it to avoid making a decision. Now the Court is also suggesting employment solutions: “Workers could also be employed in activities to replace the plant, using similar technical skills and through a programme of works capable of ensuring continuity of employment”. If the government backs down, the judiciary will shape industrial policy.