The Terra dei Fuochi decision: balancing rights protection and food safety implications
Di Ludovica Tripodi
- INTRODUCTION: SOME CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND
On 30 January 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) condemned Italy for violating Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in connection with its handling of the environmental emergency in the so-called Terra dei Fuochi.
The area in question—now comprising approximately 90 municipalities in the provinces of Caserta and Naples—was first referred to as Terra dei Fuochi in 2003, in a report by the environmental association Legambiente Onlus, which drew attention to the illegal dumping, burning, and incineration of hazardous waste in the territory, specifically in the municipalities of Qualiano, Villaricca, and Giugliano in the province of Naples.
The first legislative definition of the phenomenon and of the affected area was provided in Decree-Law No. 136 of 10 December 2013, converted, with amendments, into Law No. 6 of 6 February 2014. This law identified fifty-seven municipalities in the provinces of Naples and Caserta, including the provincial capitals, as areas requiring environmental and health investigations. Subsequently, an interministerial directive dated 23 December 2013—entitled Guidelines for conducting technical investigations for the mapping of agricultural land in the Campania Region pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 136/2013—was issued. This was followed by further interministerial directives on 16 April 2014 and 10 December 2015, which added thirty-one and two municipalities, respectively, to the list.
In January 2018, the 12th Standing Committee on Hygiene and Health of the Italian Senate, following a fact-finding investigation, published a report which, in addition to illustrating the gravity of the phenomenon, highlighted that the population affected—residing in the so-called Terra dei Fuochi—amounted to 2,355,482 people in the province of Naples and 607,654 in the province of Caserta. That same year, the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into Illegal Waste Activities and Related Environmental Offences described the environmental contamination in this area as the “Terra dei Fuochi phenomenon” (Sixth Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into Illegal Waste Activities and Related Environmental Offences, Report on Campania, 28 February 2018, p. 195).
Since 1995, the issue has been the subject of numerous parliamentary inquiries. As early as the first report in 1996, it was already noted that illegal activities carried out by organized criminal groups were well known. Additionally, clinical and medical studies have reported an increase in cancer-related deaths in the municipalities under investigation, attributing this in part to insufficient knowledge, complicity, and the ineffectiveness of sanctions.
Notably, the European Court of Human Rights observed, at paragraph 388 of its judgment, that the Italian Parliament had been aware since 1996—through the first inquiry report—of the increasing incidence of cancer in certain areas of the Campania region. The 2018 report by the Sixth Parliamentary Commission further underlined how administrative obstacles and dysfunctional relations between the various competent authorities had long hindered or delayed effective remediation measures.
Due to the circumstances outlined above, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had already condemned Italy twice in the matter: first, with its decision of 26 April 2007 in Case C-135/05, Commission v. Italy; and second, with the judgment of 4 March 2010 in Case C-297/08, Commission v. Italy, both establishing Italy's failure to comply with obligations under EU law. A third CJEU ruling followed on 16 July 2015 (Case C-653/13, Commission v. Italy), in which Italy was fined €20,000,000 for non-compliance with the previous judgment.
Returning to the case at hand, the Court also noted a key difference between the situation in the Terra dei Fuochi and that in other severely polluted areas of Italy, such as Taranto. In the latter, the sources [of pollution] are identifiable and limited in number, the nature of the contamination is known from a chemical and physical standpoint, and the at-risk population can be more easily identified.” In contrast, the Terra dei Fuochi is marked by the multiplicity and variety of pollution sources, the wide geographical dispersion of contamination, and the joint involvement of criminal organizations and industrial actors, which renders identification and intervention particularly complex.
- THE JUDICIAL PARAMETERS: ARTICLES 2 AND 8 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
As is well known, the deicsion originates from four separate applications submitted between 2014 and 2015 by forty-one individuals and five associations. According to the Court, the systematic environmental pollution and the insufficient action by the State resulted in a violation of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protect, respectively, the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life. With regard to Article 2, the Court reiterates its interpretative approach to the provision, arguing that the purpose and object of the Convention require an interpretation that makes its guarantees practical and effective.
The residents of the “Terra dei Fuochi” were exposed to real and imminent risks, thus constituting a violation by the State, which failed to act preventively. The Court further specifies that, to establish a violation of Article 2, it is not necessary for a death to have occurred; it is sufficient for the individual to have been exposed to a serious and ascertainable risk. The State may be held responsible for acts of omission—such as failure to decontaminate and monitor—as well as for systemic and regulatory shortcomings.
As for Article 8, the Court’s case-law over the years has significantly expanded the scope of the provision. Specifically, the aim of Article 8 is to protect individuals from arbitrary interference by public authorities in their private and family life, home, and correspondence.
The notion of “private life” does not lend itself to an exhaustive definition; it includes both physical and psychological integrity and may “embrace multiple aspects of a person’s physical and social identity” (Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], § 95; S. and Marper v. United Kingdom [GC], § 66). Moreover, according to well-established case-law, destabilizing or dangerous environmental conditions may negatively affect a person’s physical and mental well-being. However, a violation of Article 8 may only be found where the unfavourable situation has a direct and serious impact on the individual and significantly affects their quality of life (Çiçek and Others v. Turkey (dec.), § 32 and §§ 22–29; Fadeyeva v. Russia, §§ 68–69).
This applies even when the pollution is attributable to the State or when the State has failed to adequately regulate private-sector remediation activities.
Finally, according to the Strasbourg judges, a violation of Article 8 may also be found when the lack of information on health risks from public authorities is deemed harmful, as it prevented citizens from fully understanding the dangers they faced and from taking appropriate measures to mitigate health and environmental risks
- THE INFRINGEMENT OF JUDICIAL PARAMETERS AND ENSURING FOOD SAFETY
The ruling has been much commented on by jurists for its profoundly innovative jurisprudential profiles. Undoubtedly, however, the impact of the “Terra dei Fuochi” phenomenon on food safety has not been sufficiently explored.
As previously mentioned, the EDU Court's decision established that the Italian State had failed to protect and safeguard the health of millions of inhabitants who were exposed to a foreseeable environmental threat that was not sufficiently countered. In particular, the impairment and danger to human health does not only concern air and soil pollution but also the contamination of the food chain, specifically of fruit, vegetables and animal products due to the presence of waste and toxic fumes in agricultural areas. It is scientifically proven, in fact, that toxic substances released underground - dioxins, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls - can penetrate into plant or animal tissue through so-called bioaccumulation. One of the points made by the Strasbourg judges concerns precisely the omission of protection of the agricultural environment, which has led to the subsequent omission of systematic and constant monitoring of foodstuffs grown/obtained from the areas at risk. This has inevitably compromised the ability of citizens/consumers to make safe and, above all, informed choices on food.
In legal terms, the Court, in relation to the violation of Article 2, subsequently emphasised how this provision must and can be inseparably connected to Article 32 of the Italian Constitution, as a «fundamental right of the individual and interest of the community».
Information on the wholesomeness of locally produced foodstuffs was for a long time incomplete, fragmentary or even covered by state secrecy, as revealed by the work of the Commissions of Inquiry that, as previously mentioned, have been dealing with the subject for years. The lack of transparency and accessibility of environmental and health data has in fact made it impossible to fully exercise the right to health, transforming scientific uncertainty into a structural condition of insecurity, even psychological, for entire communities.
This is part of the violation of Article 8 ECHR, since in the absence of shared and updated data, citizens/consumers could not adopt any precautionary behaviour.
The judgment, therefore, not only recognised food safety as an integral part of the object of protection of the right to health, but also established that the Italian State not only failed to guarantee the protection of the rights mentioned above but also failed to fulfil its positive obligation to protect, leaving millions of inhabitants (approximately 52% of the population of Campania) exposed to a known, foreseeable and insufficiently countered environmental threat.
In particular, the judgment cites the so-called QR code Project, a project launched in 2015 by the Campania Region that was intended to be a voluntary public certification system for the purpose of ensuring the traceability and safety of agri-food products produced in the area of the so-called “Terra dei fuochi”. Participating companies would have had to submit their products to tests carried out by the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno (IZSM) and the results of the analyses would have been accessible to consumers through a QR code printed on food labels.
At the same time, the Campania region, again in cooperation with the IZSM, had also set up the so-called Transparent Campania Integrated Monitoring Programme, which provided for integrated monitoring campaigns concerning not only the environment and its components but also foodstuffs, including those of animal and plant origin and wildlife. The purpose of this programme, specifically mentioned in the judgment, was: «to obtain data on human exposure to pollutants on a regional scale and to promote a ‘culture of transparency’ in the spheres of food safety and the environment». However, the Strasbourg judges pointed out that, firstly, these programmes and initiatives were late, partial and unsystematic, since, for example, analyses were often carried out on a voluntary rather than mandatory basis without even covering the entire territory involved; secondly, they noted the lack of clear and continuous institutional communication aimed at providing citizens/consumers with all the information they needed to make informed and safe food choices.
- TO CONCLUDE
To conclude and to further highlight the above-mentioned structural violations, the Court activated the pilot judgment procedure, which applies when there is a systemic and persistent phenomenon as well as many people potentially affected and when there is an urgent need to ensure rapid and appropriate compensation. In addition, the Court, within two years of the final judgment, required Italy to: a) secure and clean up contaminated areas with detailed, continuous and easily accessible reporting; b) establish an independent monitoring mechanism with the involvement of civil society; c) create a public information platform with updated, complete and accessible data.
In the final paragraph of the decision - and this is perhaps the most interesting conclusion - the Court argues that waste pollution and climate change are polycentric issues that know no national boundaries, affecting the most vulnerable segments of the population unequally. Just like the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others decision, the Court recognises that waste management also has an intergenerational impact, and thus an ethical and legal significance that goes beyond the present and the immediate. And it is precisely in this context that food safety, which is here involved in a transversal way with regard to food quality, fair access to healthy food and the possibility for future generations to live in a healthy environment, requires integrated public policies, cooperation between public and private actors and a profound transformation of not only agricultural and production models but also regulatory models.
What has been said so far should, finally, lead to a strengthening of surveillance systems on contaminated residues in agricultural products through periodic monitoring not only on random samples but also georeferenced ones, of traceability in the supply chain and of transparency in scientific data, updated and comprehensible for the average consumer.