Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2023:990
Date: 2023-12-14
Language of the case: Italian
Subject matter: Economic, social and territorial cohesion;Environment;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary  C-626/22 ‒ 1 
Case C-626/22 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
3 October 2022 
Referring court: 
Tribunale di Milano (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
16 September 2022 
Applicants: 
C. Z. 
M. C. 
S. P. 
and Others 
Defendants: 
Ilva SpA (in extraordinary administration) 
Acciaierie d’Italia Holding SpA 
Acciaierie d’Italia SpA 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Collective action for an injunction brought by residents of Taranto and other 
neighbouring municipalities against ILVA S.p.A. (in extraordinary administration) 
(‘ILVA’), Acciaierie d’Italia S.p.A. and Acciaierie d’Italia Holding S.p.A., 
seeking protection of their rights to health, to peace and tranquillity in the conduct 
of their lives and to the climate, which they allege the defendants are adversely 
affecting by deliberate conduct which is causing severe pollution as a result of 
emissions from the plants of ILVA’s steelworks at Taranto (‘the steelworks’). 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-626/22 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. May Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution 
prevention and control), in particular recitals 4, 18, 34, 28 and 29 and 
Articles 3(2), 11, 12 and 23 thereof, together with the precautionary 
principle and the principle of the protection of human health referred to in 
Article 191 TFEU and Article 174 of the [EC] Treaty, be interpreted as 
meaning that a Member State may, on the basis of a national law, provide 
that the Assessment of Adverse Effects on Health (AAEH) is an act falling 
outside the scope of the procedure for the grant and review of the Integrated 
Environmental Permit (IEP) – in this instance [the Decree of the President of 
the Council of Ministers (DPCM) of] 2017 – and that the drawing up of an 
AAEH need not have any automatic consequences in terms of its timely and 
proper consideration by the competent authority in the context of an 
IEP/DPCM review procedure, especially where the AAEH indicates an 
unacceptable health risk for a significant population affected by the polluting 
emissions, or may that directive rather be interpreted as meaning that: (i) the 
tolerable risk to human health may be assessed by means of a scientific, 
epidemiological analysis; (ii) the AAEH must be an act coming within the 
scope of the IEP/DPCM grant and review procedure, and indeed a necessary 
prerequisite of that procedure and one demanding mandatory, proper and 
timely consideration by the authority having competence to grant and review 
the IEP? 
2. May Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution 
prevention and control), in particular, recitals 4, [15], 18, 21, 34, 28 and 29 
and Articles 3(2), 11, 14, 15, 18 and 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning 
that, on the basis of a national law, a Member State must provide that the 
Integrated Environmental Permit (in this instance, IEP 2012, DPCM 2014, 
DPCM 2017) must always take into account all the emitted substances 
which have been scientifically shown to be harmful, including fractions of 
PM10 and PM2.5, and which originate from the plant under assessment, or 
may that directive be interpreted as meaning that the Integrated 
Environmental Permit (the administrative decision granting authorisation) 
need cover only polluting substances identified in advance by reference to 
the nature and type of industrial activity being carried on? 
3. May Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution 
prevention and control), in particular recitals 4, 18, 21, 22, 28, 29, 34 and 43 
ILVA AND OTHERS 
 
3 
and Articles 3(2), 25, 11, 14, 16 and 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning 
that, on the basis of a national law, a Member State may, where an industrial 
activity is creating a serious and significant threat to the integrity of the 
environment and human health, extend the period within which the operator 
must bring the industrial activity into line with the permit granted, by 
carrying out the environmental protection and health protection measures 
and actions provided for therein, by approximately seven and a half years 
from the deadline initially set, giving a total period of eleven years? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Article 174 EC Treaty 
Article 191 TFEU 
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and 
control), in particular, recitals 4, [15], 18, 21, 22, 28, 29, 34 and 43 and 
Articles 3(2), 25, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21 and 23 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 31 March 2011 in Case 
C-50/10 
Provisions of national law relied on  
General environmental legislation 
Decreto legislativo del 3 aprile 2006, n. 152 – Norme in materia ambientale 
(Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006 – Consolidated Environmental Law), 
in particular:  
– Article 4(4)(b), which provides that one of the aims of the environmental 
assessment of projects is the protection of human health; 
– Article 5(1), which defines the Health Impact Assessment (‘HIA’) as a ‘report 
prepared by the project applicant on the basis of the guidelines issued by the 
Minister for Health … assessing all the direct and indirect impacts which the 
creation and operation of the project could have on human health’, defines 
‘environmental impacts’ as, inter alia, the ‘significant direct and indirect effects 
of a plan, programme or project on: population and human health …’, defines 
‘pollution’ as, inter alia, the ‘direct or indirect introduction into the air, water or 
soil, as a result of human activity, of substances, vibrations, heat or noise or, 
more generally, physical or chemical agents which could adversely affect 
human health …’; 
– Article 19, which concerns the procedure for making a project subject to an 
environmental impact assessment (‘EIA’) and provides that the characteristics 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-626/22 
 
4  
of the project must be evaluated with account being taken, inter alia, of the risk 
to human health, including for the purposes of ex officio verification of further 
significant environmental impacts in addition to those mentioned by the project 
applicant, and of any observations received during the course of the procedure 
and of any other assessments carried out pursuant to prevailing rules; 
– Article 22, concerns the ‘Environmental Impact Study’, which is to be prepared 
by the project applicant and must describe, inter alia, any significant effects the 
project is likely to have on the environment, and also the measures designed to 
avoid, prevent, reduce or offset the project’s likely adverse environmental 
impacts, with a programme for the monitoring of potential significant adverse 
environmental impacts resulting from the creation and operation of the project; 
– Article 23(2), which provides that the project applicant must, in order to obtain 
the issue of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – which, in itself, is a 
pre-requisite for obtaining an Integrated Environmental Permit (IEP) – also 
submit a Health Impact Assessment (HIA), which is to say the specific 
instrument assessing the impact which the activities the subject of a possible 
permit might have on human health; 
– Article 25, which concerns the EIA Order and paragraph 4 of which provides 
that the Order is to set out the measures designed to avoid, prevent, reduce or 
offset the project’s likely adverse environmental impacts and the measures for 
monitoring the potential significant adverse environmental impacts resulting 
from the creation and operation of the project; 
– Article 29c, which concerns the procedure leading to the issue of an IEP and 
provides, in paragraph 6 thereof, that account is to be taken of any mayoral 
requirements relating to the location of any plant or installation that poses a 
threat to health and to measures to reduce its environmental impact, and, in 
paragraph 7 thereof, that the mayor is to have power to require a review of the 
IEP on public health grounds; 
– Article 29e, concerning the IEP, which provides that an IEP is to contain limits 
on emissions of polluting substances. Provisions also govern emission 
monitoring requirements and types of conditional IEP; 
– Article 29g, which sets out cases, conditions and the procedure for renewing or 
reviewing an IEP; 
– Article 29i, which concerns the operator’s monitoring obligations and data 
transmission obligations and the checks and controls to be carried out by the 
Istituto superiore per la protezione e la ricerca ambientale (National Institute 
for Environmental Protection and Research, ISPRA) regarding compliance with 
the terms and conditions of the IEP, the adequacy of the controls carried out by 
the operator and the fulfilment of the operator’s data obligations. 
– Specific regime for the ILVA steelworks at Taranto 
ILVA AND OTHERS 
 
5 
Decreto del Ministro dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare del 26 
ottobre 2012, n. 547 (Decree No 547 of 26 October 2012 of the Minister for the 
Environment and the Protection of the Land and Sea [replaced by the Minister for 
Ecological Transition], ‘the Minister for the Environment’), concerning the review 
of the Integrated Environmental Permit issued to ILVA on 4 August 2011) 
(IEP 2012). 
Decreto-legge del 3 dicembre 2012, n. 207, convertito con modificazioni dalla 
legge 24 dicembre 2012, n. 231 (Decree-law No 207 of 3 December 2012, 
converted, after amendment, into Law No 231 of 24 December 2012.  
Article 1(1) introduced the concept of ‘plant or facility of strategic national 
importance’ and provides that, when it is absolutely imperative to protect 
employment and production, the Minister for the Environment may, upon 
the review of an EIP, authorise the continuation of the activity for 
36 months, on condition that the terms and conditions set out therein are 
complied with, even where a judicial authority has seized the undertaking’s 
assets and without prejudice to the carrying on of the business activity. 
Article 1a(1) provides that, in every area affected by a plant or facility of 
strategic national importance, the competent health [and environmental] 
authorities for the area are to ‘draw up jointly, and update at least once a 
year, a report assessing the adverse effects on health (AAEH), including on 
the basis of the regional cancer registers and the epidemiological maps of the 
principal illnesses associated with environmental factors’. 
Article 1a(2) provides that the methodological criteria to be used in the 
preparation of the AAEH report are to be established by interministerial 
decree of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health.  
Article 3 provides that ‘the steelworks of the undertaking ILVA S.p.A. in 
Taranto are a facility of strategic national importance’ and authorises ILVA, 
subject to the terms and conditions of the IEP 2012 Order and for a period of 
36 months from the entry into force of the decree-law (and thus up to 
3 December 2015), to ‘continue its production activity at the steelworks and 
to market and sell its goods’. 
Decreto-legge del 4 giugno 2013, n. 61, convertito con modificazioni dalla legge 3 
agosto 2013, n. 89 (Decree-law No 61 of 4 June 2013, converted, after 
amendment, into Law No 89 of 3 August 2013). 
In particular, Article 1(1) lays down the general rule that undertakings of a 
certain size and which manage at least one industrial plant or facility of 
strategic national importance may be placed in the hands of a special 
administrator where ‘the production activity has caused and is causing, 
objectively, serious and significant threats to the integrity of the 
environment and health as a result of repeated failures to comply with the 
Integrated Environmental Permit’, and Article 2(1) establishes that, in the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-626/22 
 
6  
case of the company ILVA, the conditions for appointing a special 
administrator ‘are met’. 
Article 1(5) provides that, when a special administrator is appointed, the 
Minister for the Environment is to appoint, after consulting the Minister for 
Health and the Minister for Economic Development, a committee of three 
experts having proven experience and expertise in the fields of 
environmental and health protection and industrial engineering. That 
committee is to prepare, in accordance with EU law, international law, 
national laws and regional laws, a ‘plan of the environmental protection and 
health protection measures and activities which specifies the actions and 
timeframes necessary for ensuring compliance with the law and with the 
IEP’. 
Article 1(7) provides that approval of that plan, by decree of the President of 
the Council of Ministers (DPCM) ‘equates to amendment of the EIP’. The 
steps specified in the EIP were to be completed ‘within 36 months of the 
date of entry into force of the act converting the decree into law’, 3 August 
2016.  
Article 1(7) also expressly provides that an AAEH will not in itself bring 
about amendment of the IEP, but will enable the relevant region (as the body 
having competence also in the field of public health) to request its review. 
(The results obtained upon analysis of the data acquired from the health 
authorities are classified in one of three levels according to the degree of 
urgency encountered, with only the third level enabling the region to request 
review of the EIP.) 
Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri del 14 marzo 2014 ‒ 
Approvazione del piano delle misure e delle attività di tutela ambientale e 
sanitaria, a norma dell’articolo 1, commi 5 e 7, del decreto-legge 4 giugno 2013, 
n. 61, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 3 agosto 2013, n. 89 (Decree of 
the President of the Council of Ministers of 14 March 2014 approving the plan of 
environmental protection and health protection measures and activities, in 
accordance with Article 1(5) and (7) of Decree-law No 61 of 4 June 2013, 
converted, after amendment, into Law No 89 of 3 August 2013, ‘DPCM 2014’). 
Decreto-legge del 5 gennaio 2015, n. 1, convertito con modificazioni dalla legge 4 
marzo 2015, n. 20 (Decree-law No 1 of 5 January 2015, converted, after 
amendment, into Law No 20 of 4 March 2015. 
This extends the list of large undertakings in a state of insolvency that are 
eligible for the extraordinary administration procedure, and extends that 
procedure also to undertakings which operate at least one industrial plant or 
facility of strategic national importance. ILVA was thus placed under 
extraordinary administration by decree of the Minister for Economic 
ILVA AND OTHERS 
 
7 
Development of 21 January 2015, resulting in the termination of the special 
administration decreed by Decree-law No 61 of 2013. 
It provides that the plan of measures and activities set out in DPCM 2014 
‘shall be deemed to have been implemented if, by 31 July 2015, at least 80 
percent of the requirements having a deadline on or before that date have 
been met’. It reiterates that the final deadline for meeting the remaining 
requirements is 3 August 2016. 
Decreto-legge del 4 dicembre 2015, n. 191 ‒ Disposizioni urgenti per la cessione a 
terzi dei complessi aziendali del Gruppo ILVA, convertito con modificazioni dalla 
legge 1° febbraio 2016, n. 13 (Decree-law No 191 of 4 December 2015 on urgent 
measures for the transfer of the businesses of the ILVA group, converted, after 
amendment, into Law No 13 of 1 February 2016. 
Decreto-legge del 9 giugno 2016, n. 98 ‒ Disposizioni urgenti per il 
completamento della procedura di cessione dei complessi aziendali del Gruppo 
ILVA, convertito con modificazioni dalla legge 1° agosto 2016, n. 151 (Decree-
law No 98 of 9 June 2016 on urgent measures to complete the transfer of the 
businesses of the ILVA group, converted, after amendment, into Law No 151 of 
1 August 2016). 
These two decree-laws governed the public procurement procedure for the 
transfer of the businesses of the ILVA group. 
In particular, Article 1(8.1) and (8.2) of Decree-law No 191 of 2015 
provides that, at the request of the extraordinary administrators, the Minister 
for Economic Development is to designate the successful tenderer, which 
will be entitled to submit an application for the modification of the 
environmental protection measures and activities set out in the plan 
approved by DPCM 2014, to be published on the website of the Minister for 
the Environment for public consultation purposes. The analysis of the 
outcome of that public consultation is entrusted to a committee of experts 
appointed by the Minister for the Environment within five days of the 
extraordinary administrators’ request. That committee is to comprise 
individuals with proven experience in the fields of environmental protection 
and steel plants and must draw up a report summarising the observations 
received, with a guarantee of compliance with the emission limits 
established by EU regulations. The proposed changes must ensure 
environmental protection standards consistent with the forecasts in the plan 
approved by DPCM 2014, in so far as they are compatible, and are to be 
ordered by DPCM, which is to ‘have the same effect as an EIP, replace the 
environmental impact assessment, where necessary, and concludes all 
ongoing integrated environmental permit procedures’. 
The deadline for implementing all the measures prescribed by IEP 2012 and 
the plan approved by DPCM 2014 was extended to 30 June 2017. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-626/22 
 
8  
Decree-law No 98 of 2016 brought forward the assessment of the proposed 
changes to the environmental plan set out in DPCM 2014 to a phase prior to 
the award of the contract. It also provided for the adoption of a new DPCM, 
containing the amendments to DPCM 2014 and any authorisations needed in 
order to operate the steelworks, in the light of the new business plan 
presented by the successful tenderer. 
Decreto-legge del 30 dicembre 2016, n. 244, convertito con modificazioni dalla 
legge 27 febbraio 2017, n. 19 (Decree-law No 244 of 30 December 2016, 
converted, after amendment, into Law No 19 of 27 February 2017. 
This decree-law made further amendments to Decree-law No 191 of 2015, in 
particular, in the context of public procurement, it gave a weighting of 
15/100 to the environmental plan and a weighting of 85/100 to economic 
elements.  
It extended the deadline for implementing the measures prescribed by 
IEP 2012 and the plan approved by DPCM 2014 to 30 September 2017. It 
also added to the current IEP a deadline for completing specific 
environmental clean-up measures. 
Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri del 29 settembre 2017 ‒
Approvazione delle modifiche al Piano delle misure e delle attività di tutela 
ambientale e sanitaria di cui al decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri 14 
marzo 2014, a norma dell’articolo 1, comma 8.1., del decreto-legge 4 dicembre 
2015, n. 191, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 1º febbraio 2016, n. 13 
(Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 29 September 2017 
approving the modifications to the plan of environmental protection and health 
protection measures and activities set out in the Decree of the President of the 
Council of Ministers of 14 March 2014, in accordance with Article 1(8.1) of 
Decree-law No 191 of 4 December 2015, converted, after amendment, into Law 
No 13 of 1 February 2016, ‘DPCM 2017’).  
This decree set out the changes and additions to the environmental plan set 
out in DPCM 2014 and set a deadline of 23 August 2023 for completing 
specific environmental clean-up measures. 
It also provided that, if the plan is not completely carried out for reasons 
independent of the operator’s will, a procedure will be initiated to postpone 
the deadline. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
The applicants, who are residents of Taranto, have brought a collective action for 
an injunction, to protect their rights to health, to peace and tranquillity in the 
conduct of their lives and to the climate, which they assert have been very badly 
affected for decades by the activities carried on at the steelworks owned by ILVA, 
ILVA AND OTHERS 
 
9 
which is operated by Acciaierie d’Italia S.p.A., a subsidiary of Acciaierie d’Italia 
Holding S.p.A. 
In 2012, the judge in charge of preliminary investigations at the Tribunale di 
Taranto (Regional Court, Taranto), at the request of the competent Procura della 
Repubblica (Public Prosecutor’s Office), issued an order for the sequestration, 
with no residual right of use, of ILVA’s plant and equipment. Notwithstanding 
that, following that sequestration, production activity was continued, under 
protection of the specific legislation set out above, which has, since that time, 
perpetuated a threat to the applicants’ health, inter alia, by repeatedly extending 
the deadlines for carrying out clean-up actions, which have still not been carried 
out. 
ILVA, Acciaierie d’Italia S.p.A. and Acciaierie d’Italia Holding S.p.A. have 
entered appearances as defendants in the proceedings. 
The referring court has stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice 
of the European Union the questions for a preliminary ruling set out above. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
The applicants claim that their rights to health, to peace and tranquillity in the 
conduct of their lives and to the climate are being endlessly infringed by the 
deliberate conduct which still persists and is causing unacceptable levels of 
pollution as a result of the emissions from the plants of ILVA’s steelworks at 
Taranto. That conduct is exposing residents to the risk of death and illness. The 
applicants clarify that they do not seek, by their action, a finding of a causal nexus 
between specific illnesses and the polluting emissions from the plant; nor do they 
seek damages. The goal of their action is the removal of the current ‘unfair 
exposure to risk’ of the primary, fundamental asset which is their health and of the 
other rights mentioned. 
The applicants maintain that, as residents of Taranto, they have locus standi to 
bring proceedings to defend the rights which they allege are being infringed by 
environmental damage, on the basis, inter alia, of the ruling of the European Court 
of Human Rights of 24 January 2019 (Cordella and Others v. Italy). In that case, 
the European Court of Human Rights examined claims that pollution from 
emissions from the steelworks was causing harm and concluded that that pollution 
had unquestionably had adverse effects on the well-being of those applicants who 
were resident in the municipalities affected by the emissions (Taranto and certain 
neighbouring municipalities), where the environmental risk was classified as 
particularly high. 
The applicants have also brought their action in order to assert the rights shared by 
approximately 300 000 residents of Taranto and of neighbouring municipalities, 
which are situated in an area classified as a Site of National Interest on account of 
the need for its rehabilitation after the serious pollution of its waters, air and soil.  
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-626/22 
 
10  
In support of their claims, the applicants cite the Assessments of Adverse Effects 
on Health (AAEHs) drawn up in 2017, 2018 and 2021, which attest to a causal 
link between the compromised health of residents in the Taranto area and the 
emissions from the steelworks. They also cite the Report of the Special 
Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a 
safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment of the Human Rights Council of 
the General Assembly of the United Nations, of 12 January 2022, in which 
Taranto is cited as a ‘sacrifice zone’, which the report defines as an area where 
there are extreme levels of pollution and where residents consequently suffer 
devastating effects on their physical and mental health. 
The applicants consider the legislation which provides for special regulation of the 
steelworks’ activities to be absolutely inadequate and the business lease 
agreements concluded between the defendant companies in 2017 and 2020 to be 
an evasion of the law. They complain of failures to fulfil obligations under those 
agreements. 
They also complain that the extension of the 36-month period ending on 
31 December 2015 ‒ laid down in Decree-law No 207 of 2012, converted, after 
amendment, into Law No 231 of 2012, for the implementation of IEP 2012 ‒ by 
various acts, and most recently by Decree-law No 244 of 2016, converted, after 
amendment, into Law No 19 of 2017, is unlawful and damaging. 
On that basis, the applicants seek, in particular, an order requiring the defendants 
to close down the plants and to cease operations or, in the alternative, the coke-
producing plant. In the further alternative, they ask that the ‘hot area’ be closed 
until the IEP requirements incorporated by DPCM 2017 are fulfilled, along with 
those of any other subsequent measures. They seek, in any event, an order 
requiring the defendants to draw up a business plan for reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions and to take the proper measures to eliminate or reduce the effects of the 
infringements found. 
The defendants contest the applicants’ arguments in fact and in law and contend 
that the action should be dismissed. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
1 With reference to the first question referred, the national court points out that the 
provisions of Article 1(8.1) and (8.2) of Decree-law No 191 of 2015 provide for a 
new type of review or investigation, one which replaced that established in the 
ordinary way for the issue of an IEP and is conducted, by contrast with the 
procedure which led to the adoption of DPCM 2014, without the participation of 
the Ministry of Health or of a health expert. DPCM 2017, which is based on those 
provisions, has the same effect as an IEP, replaces the EIA and concludes all 
ongoing integrated environmental permit procedures, therefore appears to have 
been adopted without the experts mentioned having been required to produce any 
document equivalent to an EIA, still less an AAEH.  
ILVA AND OTHERS 
 
11 
2 The referring court explains that the AAEH was introduced because of the need 
for health considerations to be expressly incorporated into environmental 
authorisation procedures, in order to protect the health of the populations 
concerned. Indeed, environmental limits are not formulated by reference to effects 
on health, and the purpose of the AAEH is to identify tolerable and intolerable 
health risks associated with the industrial activity for which authorisation is 
sought. 
3 In the present case, copies have been placed on the case file of the AAEHs drawn 
up in December 2017 – relating to the period 2014 to 2016 – and in December 
2018 – relating to the period 2014 to 2017 – and of the AAEH report drawn up by 
the competent health authorities in 2021. The December 2017 and December 2018 
AAEHs, despite being expressly classified as ‘level one’ (whereas, under the 
legislation in force, only level three will enable the region to request amendment 
of the IEP), raise concern with regard to the health and epidemiological situation 
in Taranto. In particular, they identify harmful effects of environmental pollution 
of industrial origin, suggesting that there is a causal relationship between 
industrial emissions and compromised health in and around Taranto. 
4 The referring court thus observes that, under the specific legislative regime for the 
ILVA steelworks, the AAEH is not a pre-requisite for the issue of the IEP as 
replaced by DPCM 2017, nor is the AAEH drawn up at the instigation of the 
authority having competence to issue or review the permit or, in any event, in the 
context of the procedure for the issue or review of the IEP. Nor, indeed, does that 
regime provide that the IEP must be reviewed on a timely basis when the AAEH 
indicates an unacceptable health risk. The AAEH check is thus subsequent to, and 
not necessarily associated with the review of the IEP. 
5 The national legislation therefore appears to be inconsistent with Directive 
2010/75, in particular, with recitals 4, 18 and 34 thereof, which concern the high 
level of human health protection that must be ensured, in relation to recitals 28 
and 29, according to which combustion plants (Article 3(25)) are highly polluting 
and dangerous to human health, and with Articles 11, 12 and 23 of that directive – 
read in the light of the precautionary principle referred to in Article 191 TFEU and 
Article 174 of the [EC] Treaty – which provide that ‘all the appropriate preventive 
measures are taken against pollution’ and that ‘the best available techniques are 
applied’ so that ‘no significant pollution is caused’, and provide for the 
identification of ‘the nature and quantities of foreseeable emissions from the 
installation into each medium’ and, above all, any ‘significant effects of the 
emissions on the environment’, as well as the ‘proposed technology and other 
techniques for preventing or, where this is not possible, reducing emissions from 
the installation’ and the ‘measures planned to monitor emissions into the 
environment’ and, lastly, provide for ‘the systematic appraisal of the 
environmental risks’ on the basis of the ‘potential and actual impacts of the 
installations concerned on human health and the environment, taking into account 
the levels and types of emissions, the sensitivity of the local environment and the 
risk of accidents’, as well as the ‘record of compliance with permit conditions’. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-626/22 
 
12  
6 In the referring court’s view, therefore, Directive 2010/75 may be correctly 
interpreted as meaning that the AAEH must be an act falling within the scope of 
the IEP grant and review procedure, and indeed a necessary prerequisite of that 
procedure and one demanding mandatory, proper and timely consideration by the 
authority having competence to grant and review the IEP. 
7 In support of its line of reasoning, the referring court also refers to the judgment of 
the Court of Justice in Case C-50/10, the reasoned opinion of the European 
Commission in Infringement Proceedings 2177/2013 and the judgment of the 
European Court of Human Rights of 24 January 2019 in Cordella and Others v. 
Italy. 
8 As regards the second question referred, the national court states that, further to a 
request made by the major of Taranto in May 2019, prompted by the findings in 
the latest AAEH reports drawn up by the competent health authorities – which 
indicated that, after completion of the measures provided for by the decree issued 
on review of EIP 2012, by DPCM 2014 and lastly by DPCM 2017, an 
unacceptable risk to the population remained – the competent ministry ordered a 
review of the IEP covered by DPCM 2017. The comprehensive AAEH report 
prepared in 2021 indicated that it was necessary to supplement the list of 
emissions which the operator had proposed and to include substances that had not 
previously been considered (the ‘Supplemental Set’) and to take into 
consideration, for the purposes of the IEP, all the polluting substances in the 
Taranto area mentioned in the final AAEH report drawn up in 2018. 
9 It is common ground that the IEP review procedure in the context of which the 
AAEH 2019 – 2021 report (see above) was produced has still not been concluded, 
more than three years after it was initiated, in so far as concerns the substances in 
the ‘Supplemental Set’. 
10 The referring court thus notes that the specific legislative regime for the ILVA 
steelworks has made the issue and review of the IEP possible without any 
consideration of the polluting substances in the ‘Supplemental Set’. 
11 That appears to be inconsistent with Directive 2010/75 and, in particular, in 
addition to the recitals and articles mentioned in the first question, with 
recitals [15] and 21, which concern, respectively, the setting of emission limits 
and the review and updating of permit conditions in order to take account of 
developments in best available techniques or other changes at an installation, and 
with Articles 14, 15, 18 and 21, in so far as those provisions provide that permit 
conditions must include ‘emission limit values for polluting substances’, ‘suitable 
emission monitoring requirements’, ‘conditions for assessing compliance with the 
emission limit values’, provide for the setting of ‘emission limit values that do not 
exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques’, provide 
that, ‘where an environmental quality standard requires stricter conditions than 
those achievable by the use of the best available techniques, additional measures 
shall be included in the permit’, and provide that permit conditions must be 
ILVA AND OTHERS 
 
13 
reconsidered and updated where ‘the pollution caused by the installation is of such 
significance that the existing emission limit values of the permit need to be 
revised or new such values need to be included in the permit’. 
12 In the referring court’s view, Directive 2010/75 may therefore be interpreted as 
meaning that national legislation must provide that the IEP must always take into 
account all the emitted substances which have been scientifically shown to be 
harmful, however they are produced by the plant under assessment. 
13 With reference to the third question referred, the national court observes that the 
special legislation relating to the steelworks is marked by a series of extensions 
and deferrals, not always linked to actual review or updating of the conditions 
governing its operation. Indeed, the measures prescribed by the revised IEP 
contained in the plan of the environmental protection and health protection 
measures and activities approved by DPCM 2014 were supposed to have been 
implemented by 31 July 2015. That deadline was extended to 30 July 2017 by 
Decree-law No 191 of 2015, and then to 30 September 2017 by Decree-law 
No 244 of 2016. As things stand, if there is no further extension, the deadline for 
carrying out the measures is the date on which the IEP expires, 23 August 2023, in 
accordance with Decree-law No 244 of 2016 and DPCM 2017. 
14 The referring court also points up the provision contained in DPCM 2017 pursuant 
to which, if the plan of environmental protection and health protection measures 
and activities is not completely carried out for reasons independent of the 
operator’s will, a procedure is to be initiated to postpone the deadline, as indeed 
has already happened on a number of occasions. 
15 The referring court emphasises that the deadlines were postponed, first, to enable 
the continuation of an industrial activity which the legislature itself considered to 
pose a serious risk to human health and the environment and, secondly, to enable 
work to be carried out that was supposed to make the steelworks safe for the 
health of residents nearby. The attainment of that objective, however, has been 
repeatedly deferred, as explained above. 
16 It therefore concludes that the continued operation of the steelworks – despite the 
serious and significant threat to the integrity of the environment and human health 
resulting from repeated failures to comply with the Integrated Environmental 
Permit, as established in Decree-law No 61 of 2013 – was authorised by law on 
the condition, conferring lawfulness on that continued operation, that the terms 
and conditions of IEP 2012 are fulfilled and the measures in the plan drawn up 
along with DPCM 2014 are implemented within 36 months (ending on 
3 December 2015). That deadline has, however, since been postponed for a further 
seven years and now falls on 23 August 2023. 
17 The referring court takes the view that the national legislation referred to is 
therefore inconsistent with Directive 2010/75 and, in particular, in addition to the 
recitals and articles mentioned in the first and second questions, with recitals 21 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-626/22 
 
14  
and 22, which concern the reconsideration and updating of permit conditions, 
recital 43, according to which some of the directive’s requirements should apply 
to existing installations after a fixed period from the date of application of the 
directive, and Articles 16 and 21, which respectively concern the monitoring of 
emissions and the reconsideration and updating of permit conditions by the 
competent authority. 
18 Those provisions provide that installations existing at the time when the directive 
entered into force should be allowed a ‘sufficient’ and ‘fixed’ period of time in 
which to adapt technically, provide that permits must include all the appropriate 
measures to prevent pollution and to ensure that no significant pollution is caused, 
provide that the period of time allowed for adapting plants to new ‘best available 
techniques’, especially in so far as emission values are concerned, is four years, 
and provide that permit conditions must be reconsidered where emission limit 
values need to be revised, where the operational safety of the plant requires other 
techniques to be used or where it is necessary to comply with a new 
environmental quality standard. 
19 Those provisions may therefore be interpreted as meaning that the applicable 
national legislation has deferred the implementation of the technical measures 
identified as being necessary in order to prevent infringement of the 
abovementioned rights for a period of time which is excessive and unacceptable 
with regard to the protection of the health of the individuals affected by the 
polluting emissions from the steelworks and the protection of the environment.