By Victoria Acheson
On 30 January 2025, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy, unanimously found that Italy had violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to protect the right to life of residents in the provinces of the Campania region, known as the “Terra dei fuochi” (The Land of Fires). The name refers to the frequent smoke columns caused by the illegal burning of waste.
For over thirty years, organised criminals were transferring hazardous waste from industries in the north of Italy, which was later buried or burned in the countryside of the province of Naples, leading to one of the largest environmental crimes in Europe. The environmental and health consequences were disastrous and long-lasting. Soil and water contamination affected agriculture and farming. The pollution was linked to an increase in malignant tumours, congenital malformations, and respiratory diseases, amounting to an epidemiological crisis. The death rate in the affected provinces was 9% higher than in the rest of the region. Despite the local authorities and law enforcement being aware of the problem since the 1990s, the first comprehensive measures to understand and address the pollution were taken only in 2013. The situation would not have continued for so long if not for the shortcomings in the waste cycle in the Campania region and a lack of rapid and efficient clean-up and remedial action.
This is a groundbreaking judgment by the Court. For the first time, it found a violation of the right to life in a case concerning environmental pollution and ordered specific remedial measures under the pilot judgment procedure. Italy has finally been held responsible and is now obliged to act. The victims will receive long-awaited acknowledgement, and hopefully, this marks a step forward for environmental protection in Europe.
Right to Life
This was the first time the Court found a violation of the right to life in a case involving prolonged exposure to environmental pollutants. Previously, an obvious causal link between a risk factor and a victim’s death —or exposure to a real and imminent risk of death— was required. As a result, violations of Article 2 in environmental cases were rarely found, only in cases involving an imminent danger, such as natural disasters or hazardous industrial activities that led to imminent death. In Öneryıldız v. Turkey, for example, the Court found a violation of Article 2 when Turkey failed to take appropriate steps to prevent the accidental deaths after a methane explosion at a rubbish tip. In contrast, pollutants are more challenging to assess, as diseases linked to environmental pollution are often multifactorial. Notably, in Brincat and others v. Malta, the Court rejected the application of Article 2 to individuals with respiratory problems related to asbestos exposure but not malignant mesothelioma, the rare cancer most closely associated with the pollutant. Since their conditions were not considered life-threatening, it was held that their right to life had not been violated, and instead, Article 8, the right to respect for one’s private and family life, was applied.
In Cannavacciuolo and Others, the Court adopted unprecedented reasoning, departing from its previous line of cases. The arguments of the Italian State were rejected. Rather than requiring each applicant to prove a direct causal link between exposure to an identifiable type of pollution and the onset of a specific life-threatening disease, the Court considered the population as a whole. If epidemiological studies demonstrated a life-threatening risk within the population, and the individual resided in a municipality identified by the State as affected, this was considered sufficient to establish a real and imminent risk to life. This represents a less stringent evidentiary threshold, and the Court’s reasoning prioritised upholding Convention rights, potentially paving the way for future pollution-related cases.
Precautionary Approach
The European Court of Human Rights in Cannavacciuolo dismissed the Italian Government’s arguments and emphasised the importance of a precautionary approach, which should have been followed. The precautionary principle, enshrined in Article 191 of the TFEU, should be the basis of environmental policy; that is, erring on the side of caution even when there is incomplete scientific data. The State argued that the precise effects of the pollution were unclear, and for a long time, no conclusive studies confirmed the causal link between the pollution and a risk to life. The Court rejected this reasoning, relaxing the causal link requirement, and signalled that even when scientific certainty is lacking, protective measures should be taken.
Referring to the Court of Justice of the European Union case law, it was held that where there is uncertainty about the existence or extent of risks to human health, authorities may take protective measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks become fully apparent. Prima facie concerns should have been sufficiently alarming. This is a significant departure from the Court’s earlier judgment in Di Sarno (2012) on the waste management crisis in Campania, in which the Court could not “conclude that the lives or health were threatened” because of different scientific studies reaching opposite conclusions regarding the causal link. However, since then, the ongoing crisis has become even more evident with more information available. Moreover, unlike previous cases that tackled the waste crisis in the region, the given case directly concerns the large-scale pollution and its effects.
Looking Beyond the Judgment
In Cannavacciuolo, the Court used the pilot judgment procedure in an environmental case for the first time, underlining the gravity of the crisis and the number of pending applications. The procedure may be adopted when there is a structural or systemic problem which has given rise or may give rise to similar applications, so that the given case can serve as a reference point for other similar cases. In pilot judgments, the Court identifies the nature of the problem and remedial measures which the State is required to take. Typically, because of the complexity of environmental issues, specific remedial measures are deferred to domestic authorities to decide. Here, in an unprecedented manner, the Court gave Italy two years to comply with the required general measures, that is, setting up a comprehensive strategy bringing together existing or envisaged mapping and decontamination measures, establishing an independent monitoring mechanism to measure progress and impact, and creating a public information platform. These forward-looking and concrete measures reflect the seriousness of the issue and go beyond the sole interest of the applicants. Encouragingly, some steps have already been taken by the Italian government, namely the establishment of a National Commissioner for the reclamation of the area.
Conclusion
Campania’s environmental and health crisis has finally received the international recognition it deserves through the application of Article 2 and the acknowledgement of a violation of the right to life. The judgment brings hope to affected individuals and constitutes a landmark step forward in environmental litigation.
Beyond the case itself, the ruling raises important questions regarding waste trafficking and illegal waste disposal —issues in which Italy, unfortunately, remains the epicentre among EU countries. This still-widespread problem calls for coordinated action among local authorities, communities, and waste management companies, along with efforts to address the systemic failings in the waste cycle.
About the author
Victoria Acheson holds a Bachelor’s degree in Law and French from the University of Bristol. In September, she will begin a Master’s in Comparative law at University College London. She has a keen interest in European law and enjoys learning languages in her free time.
European Studies Review 