Ilva in extraordinary administration is trying to stop the recent decree of the Milan Court of Appeal which ordered the shutdown within 90 days of the hot area of the former Ilva of Taranto due to pollution from fine dust and asbestos. The days set by the judges are already running and expire before the end of October. Ilva in extraordinary administration – the company owning the steel plants, while Acciaierie d’Italia in extraordinary administration is the operator of the same – filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation on August 14. With the appeal – 82 pages in total – it requests the “cassation of decree no. 425/2026 issued on July 9, 2026 by the Milan Court of Appeal.” Precisely the one that imposes the shutdown of blast furnaces and steelworks. Ilva in extraordinary administration is appealing against the group of Taranto citizens who initiated the lawsuit against the former Ilva requesting its stop at the Milan Court, a case that also reached the European Court of Justice and then the Court of Appeal. But it is also against the Puglia Region, the Legal Intervention Group and Codacons, as well as against Acciaierie d’Italia spa and Acciaierie d’Italia holding, both in extraordinary administration, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Milan Court of Appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Cassation. Fourteen are the reasons underlying the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Read more Wsj, Lutnick asks Apple not to buy Chinese memory chips
Ask the Sun
The questions are automatically suggested by 24Ore AI
based on the content viewed.
“The jurisdiction belongs to the administrative judge”
In the first two reasons of the appeal, the decree on the shutdown of the hot area is challenged “because the Court of Appeal entertained a claim and ruled on a dispute reserved for the jurisdiction of the Administrative Judge,” while “with the second reason the decree is challenged because the Court of Appeal issued rulings falling within the powers and competence of the Public Administration. Specifically, instead of referring every determination regarding the scope of the Integrated Environmental Authorization issued in 2025 and the identification of the prescriptions and/or recommendations necessary to minimize the environmental impact to the competent Administration, the Court of Appeal – it is argued – replaced the Administrations involved in the 2025 AIA review procedure and demanded to directly establish the content that the authorization must contain.”
Ilva in extraordinary administration also contests the decree of the Milan judges “because the Court of Appeal ordered the disapplication of the 2025 AIA in the absence of the relevant conditions” and “because the Court of Appeal ordered the disapplication of the decree of the Ministry of Environment and Energy Security no. 278/2023 and the prior opinion of the Higher Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in the absence of the relevant conditions.” Furthermore, in the appeal to the Supreme Court it is stated that Ilva in extraordinary administration “reserves the right to submit, substantially simultaneously with this appeal, a request for suspension of the effects of the challenged measure.” The suspension request will be addressed to the same Court of Appeal.
Read more Earthquake, magnitude 3.9 tremor in Linguaglossa in the Catania area
The lawyers: no extension of environmental prescriptions
For the lawyers of Ilva in extraordinary administration – Giuseppe Lombardi, Marco Annoni, Lazare-David Vittone Tassinari, Raffaele Cassano and Alberto Villa – “the relationship between investigative prescriptions and subsequent updating does not constitute an extension of environmental measures, but rather the mechanism through which the legislator ensures that the authorization follows the evolution of technical knowledge, plant performance and best available techniques. From this perspective – it is stated – the challenged decision (in the hypothesis that it is considered to have confirmed on this point that of the Tribunal) ends up attributing to the AIA a nature opposite to that derivable from art. 29-sexies and constitutional jurisprudence.”
That is, it is specified, “not a title susceptible to progressive adjustment based on data and studies acquired during its exercise, but a measure that should set from the origin and definitively every future intervention, even when the necessity, feasibility or technical methods of the latter still need to be ascertained.”
Read more Short-term rentals, blitz by the Guardia di Finanza against «chicken coop» houses in Gallipoli
