Ilva is on the verge of financial collapse and in the event of default the ovens would have to be shut down. At the moment bankruptcy is avoided by the banks which reactivated the minimum credit lines on Friday morning. Today the Council of Ministers will discuss the measures to be taken to save the Taranto factory: the idea of a sort of "blind trust" is making headway - writes Il Sole 24 Ore - to temporarily suspend the powers of the property and ensure compliance with the 'Aia. Tomorrow, however, the company is planning an extraordinary meeting.
Meanwhile, yesterday, after more than ten months, Ilva obtained from the investigating judge Patrizia Todisco the right to use the plants in the hot area seized on 26 July 2012 for pollution and environmental disaster. Plants that had actually never stopped and that had already been returned to the company had already been reintroduced on the basis of law 231/2012, the so-called 'Save Ilva'.
The ordinance dissolves the reserve of last January when questions of constitutional legitimacy were raised on the law 231/2012, not then considered valid by the Consulta. The investigating judge's measure was notified by the Carabinieri of the Lecce ecological operating unit to the company and to the four judicial guardians (engineers Barbara Valenzano, Emanuela Laterza and Claudio Lofrumento and the accountant Mario Tagarelli).
Precisely for the custodians, who will have to make use of the Carabinieri del Noe, the investigating judge ordered that "by means of frequent visits and inspections, even at night, at the sequestered sites, they verify and document the state of the areas and plants subject to precautionary restrictions" and check "the current situation regarding the polluting emissions of the plants themselves and the relative monitoring system". The guardians and the carabinieri will have to report the situation "punctually" to the judge "with written reports at least once a week".
In the provision, the investigating judge, referring to what was stated by the Constitutional Court, underlines that the right of use granted "may not be (further) permitted by the judicial authority" in the event that "the provisions of the reviewed Hague are transgressed in the future" . Furthermore, the judge negatively evaluates the possibility that extensions are granted to fulfill the provisions of The Hague. "They could not be granted - he writes - without achieving an objective imbalance in the protection of the rights at stake, to the detriment of the right to health and a healthy environment".
