Climate litigation achieved an important milestone in Italy. In a landmark order on 18 July 2025, the Supreme Court of Cassation confirmed that Italian courts may assert jurisdiction over climate-related damages for the first time. The ruling opens the door to holding both public and private actors liable for climate inaction.
The concept of abusive feminism proves useful in interrogating the true nature of Meloni’s government. Rosalind Dixon defines abusive feminism as the use of feminist language and symbols by authoritarian or illiberal regimes to legitimize anti-democratic or oppressive practices. Crucial is the distinction between a “feminine” government and a “feminist” one: as Dixon warns, the mere fact of having a woman serving as Prime Minister does not, in itself, guarantee the pursuit of a genuine gender equality agenda. Meloni is a case in point.
Am Dienstag hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht die Verfassungsbeschwerde eines Arztes verworfen: Der Arzt hatte einem psychisch kranken Mann auf dessen Wunsch eine Infusion mit einer tödlich wirkenden Substanz gelegt. Obwohl der Patient den Zugang selbst öffnete, nahm der BGH einen Totschlag in mittelbarer Täterschaft an. Der Fall zeigt einmal mehr, dass der Fragenkreis von Sterbehilfe und Unterstützung beim Suizid dringend einer durchdachten gesetzlichen Regelung bedarf. Anregungen dazu können neue Normierungen der Materie in Frankreich und England geben.
On 20th of May 2025, the European Court of Human Rights declared the case of S.S. and others v Italy inadmissible under Art.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision marks a missed opportunity. Instead of addressing the question of functional jurisdiction in the context of externalised migration control, the Court found that Italy does not enjoy extraterritorial jurisdiction over a group of irregular migrants whose ship was wrecked on the high seas near the Libyan coast. The ruling is another illustration of how externalised border control and “pull-back” policies are becoming normalised in Europe.
Eight months after first exploring the legal contours of the “innovative” Italy-Albania Protocol and its temporary suspension following the Court of Rome’s refusal to validate the detention of the first group of asylum applicants transferred to Albania, this post turns to a new and potentially game-changing development: a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), submitted by the Italian Court of Cassation on 20 June 2025. The referral raises doubts about the compatibility of the scheme with both the Return Directive (RD) and the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD). This move adds fresh legal uncertainty to a deal already under intense scrutiny and could significantly impact its implementation.
The CJEU’s judgment in Kinsa marks a rare rights-based correction to the EU’s punitive approach to migration. Prompted by a case from Italy, the Court confronts the criminalisation of those who cross borders caring for children. Rather than deferring to enforcement rationales, it centres fundamental rights and draws clear constitutional limits. The ruling opens a path to challenge overbroad criminalisation not just retrospectively, but at the level of legal design. In the shadow of ongoing EU reform efforts, Kinsa signals a shift: from border control to proportionality scrutiny.
Russian oligarchs in Malta, descendants of Italians in South America, and Mexicans crossing into the US make unlikely characters for a common story. Yet over the first half of 2025, the ability of each of these groups to acquire or transmit citizenship status has been under scrutiny, signalling a shared preoccupation with ensuring that citizenship reflects “authentic” bonds and is not acquired instrumentally. In the struggle to define these “authentic” bonds each intervention strikes at the heart of some well-known citizenship tenet – the link to soil, blood, or money – without offering a clear alternative. The resulting void calls for a reflection on the principles that ought to inform rules on citizenship attribution.
Fears are spreading that Italy, too, may be joining the club of EU Member States dismantling the rule of law. In this post, I will discuss three episodes that indeed lay bare a set of enduring constitutional tensions: the “Striano gate”; the “Paragon affair”; and the enactment of a Security Decree. While the actors involved are not the same in each story, the constitutional stakes are analogous: the proper use of coercive powers in a democracy and the traditional dichotomy between freedom and state authority. So, are we witnessing early signs of democratic regression?
Last week, Italy’s judiciary went on strike. While clashes between judges and politicians are nothing new in Italy, this latest reform raises concerns that go beyond routine legal disputes. Though not a radical overhaul, the changes could significantly impact judicial independence and the separation of powers.
In Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation of Article 2 ECHR on account of the State’s failure to protect the right to life of residents in an area of Southern Italy known as the “Land of Fires” (Terra dei Fuochi). This is the first judgment linking a violation of the right to life to the prolonged exposure to pollutants released into the environment. The decisive element for the applicability of the right to life has been a shift in the Court’s approach to the causal link requirement that triggers a violation of Article 2. The Cannavacciuolo judgment should therefore be seen as a turning point for climate and environmental justice.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters