The Court of Appeal of Milan has rejected for the second time the request to suspend the shutdown of the blast furnaces of the former Ilva in Taranto. The provision issued in July therefore remains valid, which provides for the stoppage of the hot area by the end of October.
The panel of judges, chaired by Giuseppe Ondeialso rejected the new request presented by Ilva and Acciaierie d’Italia, both in extraordinary administration. The companies asked to freeze the stop until at least October 20, the day on which the Supreme Court will examine their appeals.
For the Milanese judges, however, the setting of the hearing before the United Sections does not represent a new element sufficient to change the framework already assessed. As a result, the shutdown remains confirmed.
Because the Court also rejected the second request
This time Ilva and Acciaierie d’Italia had indicated a new element: the Court of Cassation has scheduled the hearing on the extraordinary appeals presented against the decree ordering the blockade of the hot area for October 20th, with the aim of obtaining at least a temporary suspension of the shutdown, waiting for the judges of the Supreme Court to rule.
For the Court of Appeal, however, the simple setting of the hearing does not change the framework on which the previous decision had already been taken. According to the college, in fact, this circumstance cannot be considered a real “supervening element“, because it changes neither the substantive nor the procedural situation already assessed by the magistrates. In other words: knowing that the Court of Cassation will examine the case on 20 October is not enough, in itself, to justify freezing the stop.
“The right to health remains prevalent”
In the 11-page provision, the judges return to the central point already stated in the previous decision. Even in the event of the blast furnaces being shut down, they explain, health protection continues to have a prevalent nature. The Court also recalls article 41 of the Constitution, amended in 2022, according to which private economic initiative cannot take place causing damage to health or the environment.
The economic and industrial risk envisaged by the companies was therefore not considered sufficient to overturn the balance between the interests at stake.
The concept is expressed with particular clarity in the provision: the danger linked to the shutdown of the systems is considered “yielding to the pre-eminent right to healthIt is the same principle that the Court had already used on 11 September, when it rejected the first suspension: between the right to business activity and the citizens’ right to health, the magistrates had established, the latter must prevail.
The second attempt after the no in September
The new decision is part of a legal case that has accelerated significantly in recent months. In July the Court of Civil Appeal of Milan ordered the closure of the hot area of the Taranto plant within 90 days, until the asbestos was removed and emissions were reduced within conditions deemed compatible with the protection of health.
Ilva and Acciaierie d’Italia had therefore presented an initial urgent request to suspend the effects of the provision, denouncing the consequences that the stop could have on plants, production and employment. On September 11th that request was rejected.
At that point the companies had presented an extraordinary appeal to the Court of Cassation. When the United Sections set the hearing for October 20, the second attempt to obtain the suspension arrived.
That too has now failed. The Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office itself had asked the Court to declare the new request inadmissible or in any case reject it.
What happens now to the former Ilva
The next decisive step will therefore be October 20, when the Supreme Court will examine the appeals. Until that moment, however, the shutdown provision remains fully effective. The hot area must be stopped by the set deadline, currently indicated as October 28th.
