23.07.2025

Italian Supreme Court Opens the Door to Climate Litigation Against Corporates

Main takeaway:
For the first time, Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation (Suprema Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite Civili, Ordinanza n. 71/2025 (RG 13085/2024), 21 July 2025) has ruled that domestic civil courts can hear climate-related tort claims against a private energy major (ENI) and its public shareholders (the Ministry of Economy & Finance and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti). The decision sweeps aside “political question” objections and positions climate harms as justiciable violations of fundamental rights, signalling a new era of corporate climate liability in Italy and, potentially, across the EU.

What the Sezioni Unite decided

Issue Examined	Court’s ruling	Practical meaning
Justiciability	Climate claims are not “political questions”; courts may assess whether private conduct breaches rights to life, health and private/family life under Art. 8 ECHR and the Italian Constitution.	Judges can scrutinise corporate climate strategies, even if they involve high-level policy choices.
Jurisdiction	Italian civil courts have jurisdiction because (i) ENI is domiciled in Italy and (ii) the alleged climate damages materialise where the plaintiffs reside (Italy), satisfying Art. 7(2) Brussels I bis.	Claimants need not sue in every country where emissions occur; a single forum is enough.
Corporate liability	The parent company may be liable for group-wide emissions if its overall strategy drives the harm; parent–subsidiary separateness does not shield ENI.	Parent companies must police climate impacts throughout their value chains.
Role of public shareholders	MEF and CDP, as controlling shareholders, can be sued for failing to use their influence to align the company with the Paris goals.	Large state or sovereign investors may face direct litigation risk for passive stewardship.

Why this matters

Precedent for strategic litigation – The ruling is Italy’s first high-level endorsement of climate tort claims against a fossil-fuel producer, echoing landmark cases like Urgenda(NL) and Milieudefensie v. Shell (NL), but within a civil-law jurisdiction.
Expands the net of liability – By recognising claims against shareholders, the Court broadens potential defendants to include investors with controlling stakes, strengthening the hand of activists and minority shareholders alike.
Aligns with EU sustainability agenda – The reasoning dovetails with the forthcoming Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) and the revised EU Emissions Trading Scheme, adding judicial pressure to legislative and market forces.
Heightens directors’ duties – Executives now face clearer litigation exposure if corporate transition plans fall short of the best available climate science, raising the bar for disclosure and risk management.

Action points for boards, banks, and investors

Stress-test transition plans against a 1.5 °C pathway; ensure emission-reduction targets are credible, time-bound and science-aligned.
Map group-wide exposure — include subsidiaries and joint ventures — and embed climate clauses in intragroup governance documents.
Document stewardship by significant shareholders (not only state entities) to demonstrate active oversight of portfolio companies’ climate performance.
Update litigation risk registers to reflect potential tort claims under ECHR-based arguments, not just statutory environmental breaches.
Banks and investors to assess direct and indirect liability from financing hard-to-abate and carbon-intensive sectors and to include related risk in PD, LGD and EV/NPV considerations.

Looking ahead

The case now returns to the Rome Civil Court for a merits trial that could impose operational emissions caps on ENI or mandate shareholder-driven policy shifts. Regardless of the outcome, the Supreme Court has already reshaped Italy’s climate-litigation landscape: corporations can no longer rely on jurisdictional or political-question defences to sidestep ambitious climate suits. Expect a surge in filings targeting high-emitters (including companies active in hard-to-abate and carbon-intensive sectors), shareholders and potentially lenders, heightened investor engagement, and closer integration between EU regulatory reforms and domestic judicial enforcement.