Naples, January 12, 2025 – The Campania Regional Administrative Court (TAR) has made a mistaken and unconstitutional decision. In the battle to protect the Gaiola Underwater Park, Marevivo, Greenpeace Italy, and the Marevivo Campania Delegation They do not give up and decide to appeal to the Council of State against the ruling of the Campania Regional Administrative Court (TAR) which, last November 6, rejected the appeal against the Invitalia project "Infrastructure, Water, Transport and Energy Networks of the Bagnoli Coroglio Site of National Interest". A ruling that, according to environmental associations, conflicts with the principles of the Constitution regarding environmental protection because it ignores the serious environmental repercussions of the project on the Marine Protected Area: ecosystems of extremely high ecological value, which national and international legislation requires to be preserved, are in serious danger.
The project for the reconfiguration of the sewerage network of the Bagnoli-Coroglio SIN, in fact, foresees the flow of all the flood discharges from the western hydrographic basin of Naples right into the European Special Area of Conservation IT8030041 “Gaiola and Nisida seabed” of the Natura 2000 Network, Doubling the discharges on the shoreline and increasing them on the seabed. This solution was also opposed by the Park Authority, which has always been at the forefront of the closure of the existing overflow drain. However, the ruling of the Campania Regional Administrative Court supported the hypothesis that the strengthening of the sewerage network could contribute to reducing discharges and improving the quality of the sea water. excluding a priori the risk of further environmental damage. In fact, according to the first judge, Invitalia's project will not result in the discharge of "waste" into the sea, since the wastewater that will flow out of the bypass does not technically constitute "waste." This approach, according to Marevivo and Greenpeace Italy, It downplays concrete critical issues and raises disturbing questions about the real protection of the sea and its most vulnerable habitats.
Secondo Marevivo and Greenpeace Italy, the Campania Regional Administrative Court limited itself to verifying the regularity of the administrative procedures, but It is clear that the central issue of the matter – the environmental one – has been substantially ignored. A serious, independent and transparent investigation is essential on potentials impacts of the work on marine biodiversity in an area of extraordinary naturalistic value, which includes both the Marine Protected Area “Gaiola Underwater Park” and the Special Conservation Zone IT8030041 “Gaiola and Nisida Seabed” of the Natura 2000 Network.
In particular, as the lawyer of the two environmental associations explains in the appeal, there was a violation of the inter-ministerial decree of 7.8.2002 establishing the Gaiola underwater park, which in art. 4 expressly establishes that the following are prohibited: "alteration by any means of the geophysical environment and the biochemical characteristics of the water, the dumping of solid or liquid waste". Furthermore, the lawyer points out: "it is undisputed between the parties that the Invitalia project will, at best, only be an improvement and not a solution to the problem of water pollution in the Gaiola".
The stretch of sea separating Gaiola from the island of Nisida contains highly valuable marine habitats, unique in the urban coastal context, such as three large coralligenous banks, one of the most important biological communities in the Mediterranean, and Posidonia oceanica, both protected by the Habitats Directive and the Barcelona Convention. Yet, no adequate studies have been conducted on the potential impact of these new discharges on existing biodiversity, nor have any viable alternative solutions been proposed. declares Rosalba Giugni, president of the Marevivo Foundation.
"Instead of protecting a precious marine area like Gaiola, they've decided to sacrifice it for a poorly written project that provides no protection whatsoever for the protected sea off Naples. Once again, the sea is considered a second-rate habitat in Italy, where marine protected areas are few and far between. We cannot allow this trend to continue." declares Valentina Di Miccoli, marine director for Greenpeace Italy.
"The appeal to the Council of State is a necessary step, an act of love and responsibility for our sea and our land. This is what was missing in the planning of the Environmental Remediation and Urban Regeneration Program (PRARU) and in all subsequent phases. It should have been, and could have been, a great opportunity for the definitive redemption of the Sea of Naples, but it was not to be." adds Maurizio Simeone, Director of the Gaiola Underwater Park Marine Protected Area.
“Protecting a marine protected area is not only an ethical but a legal duty – clarifies Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, president of the Univerde Foundation. "And the action to prevent spills also serves to avoid EU infringement proceedings against Italy. It would be helpful if the state, through administrative self-regulation, immediately changed the project, directing all discharges to the Cuma treatment plant."
In recent months, the long campaign carried out by Marevivo and Greenpeace Italy to defend the last paradise of Naples has gathered a broad and transversal consensus: public figures, professionals, citizens, the scientific and cultural world, together with 16 environmental associations gathered in The Sea Protection Coordination Committee "Chi Tene o' Mare" has strongly contested Invitalia's Plan. An unprecedented mobilization, which also saw the participation of the mussel farmers of the area and numerous authoritative entities – including UniVerde Foundation, Confcommercio-Imprese per l'Italia, the Southern Italy Ornithological Studies Association, and the GreenCare Award Association – all signatories of the intervention document ad adiuvandum in support of the appeal to the Campania Regional Administrative Court. Yet, all this was not enough. Unfortunately, the will expressed by the Regional Council of Campania, which, by defining “nefarious” the PRARU, had unanimously approved the motion against presented by former councilor Roberta Gaeta. An unequivocal political signal, completely ignored along with the voices of the local communities and the environmental evidence.
Finally, it should be noted that the contested ruling does not take into account that the The Consolidated Environmental Law defines “pollution” as: «the introduction direct or indirect, as a result of human activity, of substances, vibrations, heat or noise or more generally of physical or chemical agents, in the air, in water or in the soil, which they might harm to human health or to the quality of the environment, cause the deterioration of material assets, or damage or disturbance to the recreational values of the environment or to other legitimate uses of it" as stated in the appeal presented to the Council of State.
The Campania Regional Administrative Court's decision also contradicts the cultural and legislative evolution of the last fifty years, which has led the legislature to include among the fundamental principles of the Constitution "the protection of the environment, biodiversity, and ecosystems, also in the interest of future generations."
The Prefect of Naples, Michele di Bari, disagrees. Following the ruling by the Campania Regional Administrative Court (TAR) annulling the extension of the ban on loitering in the city's so-called "red zones," the government's response has arrived: an appeal will be filed with the Council of State. The Prefecture emphasizes that the decision was made "in full compliance with the judicial ruling," but is based on the belief in the legitimacy and necessity of these measures, which were created to combat widespread degradation and crime in some critical areas of the city.
The contested ordinance, the Neapolitan Prefecture states in a statement, was the result of a process shared with the mayors within the Committee for Public Order and Safety. The so-called "red areas” – limited and limited in time – had been identified on the basis of documented incidents of fights, vandalism, excessive alcohol consumption, drug dealing and assaults, which had made the intervention of the police necessary to ensure the usability of the public space.
Salernitana has suffered a major setback in its legal battle: the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR) has declared inadmissible the club's appeal against the Lega B, FIGC, and CONI (Italian National Olympic Committee) to challenge the postponement of the Serie B playout matches. The "Prima Ter" section of the administrative court resolved the matter, citing the club's failure to comply with the so-called "sporting preliminary ruling," the requirement to exhaust all levels of sporting judgment before appealing to an external jurisdiction.
According to the ruling, the Lega B press release, which was the subject of the dispute, should have been challenged first before the National Federal Tribunal of the FIGC, then possibly before the CONI Guarantee Board and only subsequently, in the event of further dispute, before the TAR.
Napoli – Questa mattina, attivisti di Greenpeace Italia hanno fatto parlare il mare della Gaiola, la zona marina più bella Napoli, appendendo un enorme striscione raffigurante un gabinetto con la scritta “Basta scarichi” sull’arco dell’isolotto. Un gesto simbolico per lanciare un grido d’allarme al governo: le Aree marine protette (Amp) sono scrigni di biodiversità, non…
Source EDITORIAL TEAM
Comments (1)
I believe the Campania Regional Administrative Court's decision is inadequate and fails to address the real environmental issues. It is important that more thorough investigations be conducted into the project's effects on the marine ecosystem, as the risk is very high.