Italian Supreme Court confirms jurisdiction in landmark ENI climate lawsuit

In a landmark decision, Italy’s Supreme Court confirmed that both ENI S.p.A (“ENI”) and the Italian State - as a shareholder - can be held liable for climate-related damages. In an order published on 22 July 2025, Italy’s highest court addressed a jurisdictional appeal filed by Greenpeace Italy, ReCommon and a group of individuals on whether Italian civil courts have the authority to decide claims seeking to hold a private company non-contractually liable for damages allegedly caused by its failure to reduce carbon emissions in line with international climate targets.

Key Takeaways

• Landmark ruling: Italy's Supreme Court has confirmed that Italian civil courts have jurisdiction to hear the climate lawsuit brought by Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon against ENI, allowing the case on its merits to proceed. 
• Key legal basis: The Supreme Court's decision differentiates this case from the Giudizio Universale litigation, a previous climate litigation against the Italian State, by focusing on ENI's direct corporate liability. It also establishes jurisdiction based on where the claimants suffer harm, not just where emissions originate.
• Future implications: This order is viewed as a historic decision that sets a significant precedent for future climate litigation against corporations in Italy and across Europe.

The Genesis: The proceedings before the Court of Rome

On 9 May 2023, the non-governmental organisations Greenpeace O.N.L.U.S. Italia (“Greenpeace”), ReCommon E.T.S (“ReCommon”), and a group of citizens from climate-impacted areas, sued ENI, the Ministry of Economy and Finance (“MEF”), and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (“CDP”), the Italian promotional bank, before the Court of Rome. MEF and CDP were named in their capacity as ENI’s main shareholders. 

The lawsuit - dubbed “Just Cause” (in Italian: “La Giusta Causa”) by claimants and the “False Cause” (in Italian: “La Falsa causa”) by ENI - seeks to hold ENI non-contractually liable for losses linked to its alleged failure to implement adequate measures to cut carbon emissions in line with global climate targets. Specifically, the claimants ask the Court of Rome to compel ENI to reduce its CO₂ emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, compared to 2020 levels, and to impose a financial penalty for any breach.

CDP and MEF roles as ENI shareholders

The lawsuit also alleges that MEF and CDP hold joint and several liability, based on their roles as shareholders with significant decision-making power and dominant influence over ENI's corporate strategy. Consequently, the plaintiffs are asking the Court of Rome to order MEF and CDP to adopt an internal policy which establishes binding climate targets for ENI and ensures they are effectively monitored, and to impose a financial penalty for any breach.

Legal aspects

The legal foundation for this lawsuit is broad. Claimants cite violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life and private life), provisions of the Italian Civil Code on general and hazardous liability, obligations under the Paris Agreement (implemented into Italian law), and recent constitutional amendments enshrining environmental protection and requiring businesses to prioritise the environment in their activities.

ENI’s Statement of Appearance: Alleging Lack of Judicial Authority

In response to the claimants’ allegations, in its statement of appearance and defence, ENI raised several objections. Among others, ENI alleged: 

1. the absolute lack of jurisdiction, since the claim concerned the adoption of measures which require political and legislative assessments, which are the responsibility of the Parliament and the Government; 
2. the lack of jurisdiction of the Italian judicial authority, since the plaintiffs had also attached, in support of their claim, conduct in foreign countries attributable to foreign companies that were separate and independent from the defendant. 

Similar objections have also been raised by the MEF and CDP. 

Therefore, also in light of the Court of Rome decision published on 26 February 2024 – which dismissed the first Italian climate litigation (the so- called “Giudizio Universale”) arguing, inter alia, lack of absolute jurisdiction with reference to the possibility for the civil judge to interfere with the Italian State’s climate action (see our previous blog post here) – Greenpeace and ReCommon filed an appeal to the United Sections of the Supreme Court for the resolution of the jurisdictional question. 

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Italian courts have authority to decide claims seeking to hold a private company non-contractually liable for damages allegedly caused by its failure to reduce carbon emissions in line with international climate targets. 

The appeal has led to a suspension of the merit case while the United Sections of the Supreme Court considered the jurisdictional question.

The order issued by the United Section of the Supreme Court on 22 July 2025

On 22 July 2025, Italy’s Supreme Court, United Sections, issued a landmark order affirming that the Court of Rome has jurisdiction over the climate-related claims filed by ReCommon and Greenpeace. This decision is poised to shape the future of climate litigation in Italy, clearing the way for the case brought by these NGOs to proceed before the court on the merits.

How the Supreme Court differentiated its reasoning from the “Giudizio Universale” proceedings

The Italian Supreme Court has clarified that, in assessing jurisdiction, the approach previously used by the Court of Rome in the “Giudizio Universale” climate litigation does not apply to the present case. In “Giudizio Universale,” the claimants sought to hold the State accountable for decisions and conduct associated with its legislative and political functions. In the current case, however, the claim focuses instead on the non-contractual liability of parties involved in the fossil fuel sector, due to their failure to adopt measures to limit climate-impacting activities.

A key factor in the Supreme Court’s ruling was the role played by MEF and CDP. Unlike the earlier case, the claimants did not sue these entities as public authorities charged with legislative failure, but as significant shareholders of ENI. The legal argument rests on the assertion that MEF and CDP failed to exert their rights as shareholders to steer ENI towards meeting established climate goals.

By distinguishing these two types of liability, the Court found there was no intrusion into areas reserved for legislative power. Accordingly, it confirmed that Italian civil courts have jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Cross-border harm: climate change damages linked to acts committed outside the country

ENI challenged the power of Italian courts to hear claims over environmental harm suffered abroad, particularly in relation to damages allegedly caused outside Italy. 

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the current litigation does not target alleged wrongs by ENI’s foreign subsidiaries, but instead focuses on the parent company’s responsibility for the overall activities of its corporate group. The claimants argue that ENI failed to implement an industrial and commercial strategy sufficient to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions in line with scientific targets to contain global warming. 

The Supreme Court recognized the claimants’ alleged damages, not only as violations of their fundamental rights to life, health and wellbeing, but also in terms of harm to the environment affecting both current and future generations - a perspective now central to climate litigation.

The Supreme Court confirmed that Italian courts have jurisdiction, applying articles 4(1) and 7(2) of EU Regulation 1215/2012. Under these rules, a defendant may be sued either where they are domiciled or, for tort claims, where the harmful event occurred or may occur. This gives claimants a choice between two concurrent and alternative forums:

1. the place where the initial damage materialized (not every place where negative consequences are felt);
2. the place where the harmful conduct occurred.

Applying those criteria to climate litigations, the Supreme Court explained that, while harmful emissions are generated in various places where fossil fuel activities take place, those emissions spread globally and affect the entire planet. However, the actual harm to individuals - such as impairment of health, life expectancy, and quality of life - occurs where those individuals live. In this case, the Supreme Court recognizes two possible approaches:

• the “event” causing damage (the emissions) could be linked to the place(s) where the emissions are produced, potentially leading to several courts in different countries being competent.
• Alternatively, the harm is considered to occur where the claimants experience its effects (their place of residence), allowing Italian courts to have jurisdiction over the compensation claim.

By emphasizing the latter (where the harm is suffered), the Supreme Court determined that the  Court of Rome has authority over the claim, rather than requiring proceedings in every country where the emissions originate.

The parties’ comments on the Supreme Court Order

Greenpeace and ReCommon have hailed the judgement delivered on 22 July 2025 as a historic watershed, stressing that even a corporate giant such as ENI can no longer evade its environmental obligations. In their press statements, both organizations welcome the court’s agreement to consider the substantive merits of the case. They argue that this ruling, not only paves the way for all future climate litigation in Italy, but also ranks among the most consequential decisions on climate change litigation across Europe and beyond. 

ENI, for its part, also welcomed the judgement and looks forward to resuming hearings before the Court of Rome. The energy group has asserted that, within a rigorous and law-abiding framework, it will be able to dismantle what it describes as the NGOs’ baseless and speculative allegations regarding its climate-related liabilities. 

Preliminary jurisdictional regulation (“Regolamento di giurisdizione”): How does it work?   

Article 41 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure provides for a special mechanism known as preliminary jurisdictional regulation, a procedural tool by which a party may seek a determination on jurisdiction from the United Sections of the Supreme Court. Greenpeace and ReCommon notably relied on this instrument to secure the order analyzed in this blog post.

The Supreme Court’s decision on jurisdiction is delivered by order and is binding not only on the judge handling the pending proceedings but also on any other judge who may later be called to rule on the same claim. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 367 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the ordinary proceedings are suspended while the Supreme Court considers the jurisdictional issue, unless the application is clearly inadmissible or the jurisdictional objection is clearly unfounded.

Eni’s Defamation Action against Greenpeace and Recommon

For completeness, it is worth noting that in response to the initiation of the Giusta Causa proceedings by ReCommon and Greenpeace, ENI pursued a separate legal action. Indeed, on 1 October 2024, ENI filed a defamation lawsuit against both organisations. According to ENI, this action responds to serious - and, in its view, unfounded - allegations made by those NGOs since May 2023, accusing the company of engaging in conduct amounting to “crimes” during its ordinary business activities and of bearing unwarranted liability. In its claim, ENI did not seek damages but requested only an injunction prohibiting the use of terms such as “crime”, “murder” and similar expressions, as well as any imputation of the related liabilities.

The defendants have classified the claim as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), that is, a strategic suit designed to impede free participation and public reporting by means of litigation, often with the effect of discouraging critics and diverting the opponents’ time and financial resources.

ENI, for its part, has emphasized that the action cannot be regarded as a SLAPP, especially because no claim for damages has been made.