Date: 24 February 2021
Court: The Supreme Court of Cassation – Second Civil Section
Citation: Ordinance N. 5022/2021 of the Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Sez. II Civile)
Short summary
This case established that Italian trial judges should collectively assess situations of environmental, social or climate degradation in humanitarian asylum cases, including whether natural resources are subject to unsustainable exploitation in the country of origin of the individual seeking refuge. The specific matter was remanded to a lower court.
Summary by: Mackenzie Stern
Click here to open the case in PDF format
Weight of decision
As the highest court in Italy, this decision from the Court of Cassation is binding throughout Italy. It therefore sets out a test for all Italian trial judges to conduct in humanitarian protection cases which includes environmental, social, and climate degradation in addition to instances of armed conflict.
Key facts
IL, a citizen of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria left his home and sought international humanitarian protection in Italy. He fled in part due to armed paramilitary conflict in the region, which was exacerbated by environmental destruction, including numerous oil spills.
Previous instances
IL’s application for asylum was initially rejected by the Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection, prompting an appeal to the Court of Ancona. Following a second rejection, IL appealed to the Court of Cassation, Italy’s highest appellate body.
IL grounded his appeals on two theories. First, the courts below committed prejudicial error by failing to consider altogether the environmental disaster situation in the Niger Delta. Second, the trial judge violated the Consolidated Immigration Act (Legislative Decree) No. 286/1998 by not extending humanitarian protection based on this environmental disaster.
Summary of holding
The Court accepted IL’s appeal and referred the case back to the Court of Ancona.
The Court determined that IL’s two grounds for appeal were well-founded. The Court acknowledged the existence of serious environmental instability in the Niger Delta, due to indiscriminate exploitation of the area by oil companies and ethnic-political conflicts. The Court found that the trial judge did not consider the context of environmental instability and widespread insecurity when considering eligibility for humanitarian protection.
The Court held that:
“It follows from the foregoing that if, as in the present case, the trial judge finds, in a specific area, a situation suitable for integrating an environmental disaster, or in any case a context of serious compromise of natural resources which is accompanied by the exclusion of entire segments of the population from their enjoyment, the assessment of the widespread dangerous condition existing in the applicant’s country of origin, for the purpose of recognizing humanitarian protection, must be conducted with specific reference to the particular risk for the right to life and dignified existence deriving environmental degradation, climate change or unsustainable development of the area.” (¶ 6)
Continued on the next page…