Case C‑626/22

C.Z. and Others

v

Ilva SpA in Amministrazione Straordinaria
and
Acciaierie d’Italia Holding SpA
and
Acciaierie d’Italia SpA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 June 2024

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Article 191 TFEU – Industrial emissions – Directive 2010/75/EU – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Articles 1, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21 and 23 – Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Procedures for the grant and reconsideration of a permit to operate an installation – Measures for the protection of the environment and human health – Right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment)

1. Member States – Obligations – Res judicata – Obligations of national courts – Obligation to go back on a judicial decision having the force of res judicata – None – National case-law interpreting a national provision in a manner contrary to EU law – Obligation to interpret that provision in a manner consistent with EU law – Request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of EU law – Admissibility

   (Art. 267 TFEU)

   (see paragraphs 53, 54)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Request concerning the interpretation of a directive raised in connection with a dispute between individuals and a plant or facility of strategic national importance – Dispute in the main proceedings concerning special rules adopted with regard to that plant or facility and falling within the scope of the directive concerned by the request for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling

   (Arts 267 and 288, third para., TFEU)

   (see paragraphs 56-64)

3. Environment – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Directive 2010/75 – Grant and reconsideration of a permit to operate an installation – Conditions – Obligation to make a prior assessment of the effects of the installation’s activity on the environment and on human health

   (Arts 191 and 192 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 35 and 37; European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/75, recitals 2, 27 and 45, Art. 3, points 2 and 3, Arts 4(1), 5(1), 8(2), second subpara., and 10 to 27 and Annexes I and VII, part 1)

   (see paragraphs 67-95, 104, 105, operative part 1)

4. Environment – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Directive 2010/75 – Grant and reconsideration of a permit to operate an installation – Setting of emission limit values for polluting substances – Taking into account of harmful substances liable to be emitted by the installation concerned – Scope

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/75, recital 15 and Art. 3, point 6, Arts 12(1)(f), 14(1)(a), 18 and 21(5)(a))

   (see paragraphs 109-122, operative part 2)

5. Environment – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Directive 2010/75 – Permit to operate an installation – Period for making that installation compliant with the measures for the protection of the environment and human health provided for by that permit – National legislation repeatedly extending that period – Not permissible in the event of serious and significant threats to the integrity of the environment and human health

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/75, recital 43 and Arts 8(1) and (2), 13(5), 21(3) and 82(1))

   (see paragraphs 125-128, 130-132, operative part 3)

Résumé

Seised by a request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan, Italy), the Court of Justice, sitting as the Grand Chamber, has specified the conditions for a permit to operate an installation under Directive 2010/75 on industrial emissions. ( 1 )

The Ilva steelworks (‘the Ilva plant’) is located in the municipality of Taranto (Italy) and operated on the basis of an ‘Integrated Environmental Permit’, granted in 2011.

Despite the seizure of its assets in 2012, that plant was authorised, under special derogatory rules, to continue its production activity for a duration of 36 months, provided it comply with a plan of environmental and health protection measures. The cut-off date for compliance with that plan has been extended several times, over a total period of several years, even though the activity at issue posed serious and significant threats to the integrity of the environment and the health of the surrounding populations.

In that context, the applicants, who represent the rights of approximately 300000 inhabitants of the municipality of Taranto and the adjacent municipalities, have brought a collective action before the referring court seeking, inter alia, that the Ilva plant or certain parts of that plant cease operation on account of the pollution caused by its industrial emissions and the resulting damage to human health.

Since the Italian legislation does not render the grant or reconsideration of an industrial operating permit subject to a prior assessment of the effects of the installation on human health, the referring court decided to make a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice as regards the need for such an assessment, as regards the scope of the examination by the competent authorities and as regards the period granted to the operator of an installation to comply with the conditions set in the permit issued.

Findings of the Court

First, so far as concerns the need to carry out an assessment covering the effects of the activity of the installation at issue on human health, the Court points out that the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment and the protection of human health are two closely linked components of EU policy on the environment. By establishing rules concerning the integrated prevention and control of pollution imputable to industrial activities, Directive 2010/75 puts into concrete terms the European Union’s obligations concerning environmental protection and the protection of human health, which stem, inter alia, from Article 191 TFEU, thereby contributing to safeguarding the right of everyone to live in an environment which is adequate for personal health and well-being. The Court refers, in this connection, to Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notes the close link between the protection of the environment and that of human health.

The operating permit conditions provided for by that directive include the obligation on the operator to take all the appropriate preventive measures against ‘pollution’ and measures to monitor the emissions into the environment. That operator must also ensure that its operation does not cause any ‘significant pollution’. In addition, the permit conditions are reconsidered where the ‘pollution’ caused by the installation warrants such a reconsideration. The frequency of that reconsideration must be adapted to the extent and nature of the installation and take account, inter alia, of the specific local characteristics of the place in which the industrial activity is taking place, in particular its proximity to dwellings.

In that regard, the Court observes that the concept of ‘pollution’, referred to in Directive 2010/75, includes the harm caused, or which may be caused, both to the environment and to human health. That close link between the protection of the quality of the environment and that of human health is, moreover, borne out by, in addition to the provisions of primary EU law, several provisions of Directive 2010/75 and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. As regards specifically the pollution caused by the Ilva plant, the latter court has found an infringement of the applicants’ right to respect for private and family life on the basis of the pollutant effects of the emissions from that plant both on the environment and on human health. ( 2 )

It follows that the operator of an installation falling within the scope of Directive 2010/75 must, in its permit application, provide adequate information concerning the emissions from its installation and must also, throughout the period of operation, ensure compliance with the obligations and measures provided for under that directive, by a continuous assessment of the effects of the activities of that installation on the environment and on human health.

Likewise, it is for the competent national authorities to provide that such an assessment forms an integral part of the procedures for the grant and reconsideration of an operating permit and constitutes a prerequisite to the grant or reconsideration of that permit. Where that assessment reveals results showing the unacceptable nature of the danger to the health of a large population exposed to polluting emissions, the permit concerned must be reconsidered in a short time frame. In the present case, the effects on the environment and on human health of polluting substances from the Ilva plant, namely fine PM 2.5 and PM10 particulate matter, copper, mercury and naphthalene from diffuse sources, was not assessed in connection with the environmental permits at issue.

Secondly, so far as concerns the scope of the assessment to be carried out by the competent authorities, the latter must take into account, in addition to the polluting substances that are foreseeable having regard to the nature and type of industrial activity concerned, all those substances which are the subject of emissions scientifically recognised as harmful which are liable to be emitted from the installation concerned, in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another. In accordance with the preventive principle, the identification of the quantity of polluting substances the emission of which may be authorised must be linked to the degree of harmfulness of the substances concerned.

Accordingly, the operator of an installation is subject to the obligation to provide, in its application for an operating permit, information on the nature, quantity and potential harmful effect of the emissions likely to be produced by that installation, in order for the competent authorities to be able to set limit values for those emissions, with the sole exception of those which, by their nature or quantity, are not likely to constitute a risk to the environment or to human health.

The procedure for reconsideration of a permit cannot be restricted, for its part, to setting limit values only for the polluting substances whose emission was foreseeable and was taken into consideration in the initial authorisation procedure. In that regard, it is necessary to take into account the experience gained from operation of the installation concerned and, therefore, the emissions actually established. If compliance with environmental quality standards requires that stricter emission limit values be imposed on the installation concerned, additional measures must then be included in the permit, without prejudice to other measures which may be taken to comply with those standards.

Thirdly, as regards the period granted to the operation of an installation in order to comply with the operating permit, the Court states, as a preliminary point, that, in respect of installations such as the Ilva plant, the competent national authorities had, under Directive 2010/75, until 28 February 2016 to adapt the permit conditions to the new techniques available. Where the permit conditions for the operation of an installation are infringed, the Member States are required, under that directive, to take the necessary measures to ensure that those conditions are complied with immediately.

In the light of those considerations, the Court concludes that Directive 2010/75 precludes national legislation under which the period granted to the operator of an installation to comply with the measures for the protection of the environment and human health provided for in the permit to operate that installation has been repeatedly extended, whereas serious and significant risks to the integrity of the environment and human health have been identified. It adds that, where the activity poses such risks, the operation of the installation concerned is, in accordance with that directive, to be suspended.

( 1 ) Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17, and corrigendum OJ 2012 L 158, p. 25).

( 2 ) ECtHR, 24 January 2019, Cordella and Others v. Italy, CE:ECHR:2019:0124JUD005441413.