It seems that the Berlin judge - who was supposed to recognize the just reasons of the Prussian farmer - has moved to Lecce and has dealt - finally with the due impartiality - with the Ambiente Svenduto trial relating to the crime of environmental disaster contested to the management of Riva, of the former Ilva plant in Taranto. The Court of Assizes of Appeal of Taranto, detached to Lecce, has annulled the first-instance sentence in which 26 defendants had been convicted and - accepting the requests of the defense lawyers (rejected in the first instance) has moved the trial to Potenza due to legitimate suspicion, considering both the professional judges and the lay judges in Taranto to be non-objective and in potential conflict of interest. It had already been understood that the air was changing in recent months, before the summer break when President Antonio Del Coco had suspended the payment of provisional amounts by the defendants in the “Ambiente Svenduto” trial towards the civil parties constituted in the trial, a good 1.500 citizens of Taranto and associations.
These provisional amounts (each of 5.000 euros), ordered in May 2021 with the ruling of the Assize Court, were to be understood as initial compensation (as if the outcome of the trial had already been clear from the beginning).
“The first-instance decision includes numerous critical issues,” wrote President Del Coco in the order suspending the provisional payments, issued at the request of several defendants, including Fabio and Nicola Riva, former owners and managers of Ilva, Salvatore Capogrosso, former director of the Taranto plant, Adolfo Buffo, former Ilva manager, the Riva 'trustees' – figures delegated by the owners to control production and plants -, the Puglia Region, through its president and the former presidents of the Puglia Region (Nichi Vendola) and the Province of Taranto (Gianni Florido).
With "the extension of civil liability relating to the charges to defendants reached by individual charges of crimes against the Public Administration, or, vice versa, not even related to each other by charges of competition or connecting rules, the notion of damaged by the crime has been extended in an almost unlimited manner", wrote the president of the panel in this regard, noting that the "liquidation of sums of money even for crimes already prescribed in the first instance or to parties who have not concluded against defendants or civilly responsible parties" had been foreseen. Furthermore, for the president of the appeal panel, "the lack of any motivation for the liquidation order in order to indicate the category of damage and the sums considered to be the object of the assessment" was found.
The ruling of the Court of Appeal has provoked protests from environmentalists: “It is with deep disappointment that we have witnessed the outcome of today’s hearing. The move of the ‘Ambiente Svenduto’ appeal trial to Potenza has very serious consequences for the entire Taranto community”. This is what some members of the environmentalist association Peacelink, at the forefront of the battle against pollution from Ilva, say; the move – they add – would mean the cancellation of the first-degree trial and this would mean a lengthening of the justice process and a concrete risk of the statute of limitations for very serious crimes such as extortion and, probably, manslaughter. The specter of impunity looms over the ‘Ambiente Svenduto’ trial.
We recall – Peacelink continues – that the public prosecutors (who are only a party in the trial, not a demigod, ed.) during the hearings, expressed themselves clearly and decisively against the transfer of the trial, underlining the groundlessness of the exceptions of the defenses of the defendants (but isn't it the third judge who judges?, ed.). The fight against pollution from Ilva continues anyway – Peacelink announces – we will continue to guarantee our presence in all initiatives useful for protecting the population. We will always be on the side of the victims in what the UN (???) has defined as the 'Sacrifice Zone'”.
Another association (Veraleaks) emphasizes that from 2008, the year in which the investigations began, to 2021, the year in which the sentence was pronounced, activists have dedicated a good part of their lives to defending their rights and to bringing justice to those who perpetrated an environmental disaster that has been proven” (by whom?, ed.). The Taranto environmentalist group has a nice way of understanding “bringing justice”: they take their theses for granted and indisputable. The environmental disaster will be “proven” when a final sentence is issued. The affair of the former Ilva is instead one of those cases that Filippo Sgubbi (a criminal lawyer of great standing) defines as “Punishing without law, without truth, without guilt”.
What were the standards that the plant had to comply with? For decades now, industrial production technologies in the EU have been established on the basis of health protection objectives identified at European level in agreement with the World Health Organization. However, in establishing these parameters, environmental cleanup objectives cannot fail to be compatible with other needs regarding the various production sectors, such as problems of plant depreciation, resources to invest, and coordination between different countries.
Above all, production systems need to have precise references to which they must adhere in order to be considered compliant. To understand this fundamental concept, called into question in Taranto, it is enough to remember that the European automotive industry was forced, in the same period of time, to drastically change engine technologies, just like the refining industry with regard to fuels with the aim of protecting the environment and health. But the change proceeded gradually on the basis of uniform rules that became from time to time not the indicator of absolute safety, but a sustainable and progressive standard to be adhered to in a framework of legal certainty. When it was placed under special administration and the plants were confiscated, it was not ascertained whether the plant complied with the current parameters or whether there were initiatives underway to qualify the plants and equipment. The ARPA of Puglia had certified the regularity of the plant. The court and the prosecutor's office of Taranto followed their theorem accusing the head of Arpa of having been pressured by the governor at the time, Nicky Vendola, through the peremptory invitation to be accommodating and condemned both. But this recognition did not come only from the political and administrative authorities.
When the Riva family was invited to buy the former Ilva in 1995, the plant was losing 4 billion lire a year. From 1995 to 2012, the new owners invested 4,5 billion euros, of which 1,2 billion for environmental measures. These operations were confirmed by a 2019 ruling by the Court of Milan, in the first instance and on appeal, in the proceedings for the crime of fraudulent bankruptcy against the Riva brothers (who were later acquitted). No one has ever been able to prove that the former Ilva violated the environmental protection laws in force at the time. The judicial dismantling began in 2012, with a series of raids by the Taranto prosecutor's office which - paradoxically - in the name of environmental cleanup, and in agreement with the political authorities, did everything - after the seizure of the plant and the finished products as evidence of the crime - to also prevent the implementation of the measures adopted from time to time to make production more sustainable (as in the case of the covering of mineral and fossil parks). A steel plant, like any other production activity, is not capable of transforming itself into an enormous flowering greenhouse, but is required to comply with the regulations in force from time to time regarding safety and work and environmental protection. Industrial production technologies in the EU are established on the basis of health protection objectives identified at European level in agreement with the World Health Organization.
Then there is the Arcelor-Mittal affair, the buyer who could have saved the factory but everything was done to boycott the operation against the French-Indian multinational, starting with denying its members the criminal shield that had always been granted to the commissioners in the past. A good trade unionist like Marco Bentivogli commented on that decision as follows: "Would anyone invest 3,6 billion in a plant where the hot area is still under judicial seizure? In a plant for which the judiciary has requested the shutdown of the blast furnace? In a structure that must be brought up to standard knowing that in the time it takes to do so, not being able to stop the activity, its managers could be called to answer for crimes resulting from criminal acts attributable to previous management?" We have not missed anything with regard to this plant. We have reached the point where two prosecutors have entered the field: the one in Taranto and the one in Milan (which considers itself a sort of national prosecutor, authorized to intervene everywhere).
The company tried to explain its ''non possumus'': "The provisions issued by the Criminal Court of Taranto" - it was written in the press release announcing the withdrawal - "oblige the extraordinary commissioners of Ilva to complete certain requirements by 13 December 2019 - a deadline that the commissioners themselves deemed impossible to meet - under penalty of shutting down Blast Furnace number 2." According to the French-Indian multinational, the aforementioned requirements "should reasonably and prudently also be applied to two other blast furnaces at the Taranto plant". But such a shutdown "would make it impossible for the Company to implement its industrial plan, manage the Taranto plant and, in general, execute the Contract". In the end, Arcelor Mittal found itself in the same position as someone being torn to pieces by four horses, each tied by their lower and upper limbs, forced to run in opposite directions. The management of the former Ilva was ordered to shut down and at the same time leave the most important blast furnace in the plant running. In essence, to be held criminally liable for both the continuity of operation and the closure of the plants.
In essence, the management ran the risk of being held criminally liable for both the continuity of operations (requested by Milan) and the closure of the plants (imposed by Taranto). The unions have shown a huge guilty conscience: the reverential fear of the judiciary and the inability to challenge the environmentalist rhetoric; thus engaging in fighting actions that carefully avoided clashing with the real murderers of the plant and ending up by sympathizing with their enemies. It was hoped that the new government - having fewer environmentalist obsessions - would support the action of Franco Bernabè, the manager chosen by Mario Draghi to resolve the crisis linked to the steelworks. But the Meloni government has chosen to complete the decline of what was once the largest steelworks in Europe. Minister Urso seems like a merchant at a fair trying to sell a factory halved, without a hot area and absolutely unable to maintain current employment levels as a result of the significant production downsizing connected to the new organization of the plants.
The current majority wanted to waste the establishment (amid a sea of justified controversy from the opposition) of a bicameral commission of inquiry into the management of the coronavirus health crisis. It would have been more appropriate to deal – through this instrument of parliamentary initiative – with the ex Ilva case, perhaps with the aim of implementing the list of crimes and aggravating circumstances (an action in which the government is very interested) with a new crime: factory murder.
