In the passages in which it gives strength to the public shareholder, Invitalia defines it unconstitutionalwhen instead it is a question of preserving ArcelorMittal and the production of the steel mill wants guarantees even more extensive. on “criminal shield” which protects itself and the other managers, however, not even a word. That must feel like a brush cut, Lucia Morselliad of Italian steelworksthe company that manages theformer Ilva Of Tarantowhich in front of the industry commission of Senate he defined unconstitutional the immediate admission of the extraordinary administration envisaged by the latter Salva-Ilva decree. To support her interpretation, the managing director took up the words of the constitutional lawyer Sabino Cassese claiming that the new decree is in contrast with the Cartabut at the same time asked to add new articles to the decree which even to a layman would immediately be in conflict with the Constitution.
According to Morselli, the first article should envisage moving al court of Rome not only criminal matters, as already foreseen by the decree passed by Meloni government at the end of December, but also administrative ones. The second you neutralize not only i seizures against the companies of national strategic interestbut also the confiscations thus giving a shoulder to the Court of Assizes of Taranto that in May 2021 ha confiscated the hot area of Taranto with the sentence of the maxi-trial Sold out environment. Finally, the third article should require mayors to issue ordinances “urgent and contingent” for plants of national strategic interest only in agreement with the ministry of the environment: a way to avoid, in short, that the mayor of Taranto Rinaldo Melucci sign a new ordinance for the shutdown of the most polluting systems of the iron and steel plant.
Precisely by answering the questions of the vice president of the commission Giorgio Maria Borgesioin fact, the mayor of Taranto explained that he would be ready to order the shutdown of the plants again if the same conditions of emissions encountered in February 2020 and with no response from the company. Lucia Morselli, in short, in her speech cited the “opinion” expressed by Cassese in the magazine Crisis law regarding the decree passed by the government underlining that even the constitutional lawyer believes that the article on the immediate extraordinary administration of the company violates “some article of the constitution”. Like article 3 which provides for the equality of all before the law: this article would therefore discriminate against some companies (legal persons) “since it applies – he said – to a company that has a public participation and not to all companies”. The managing director added that “according to Cassese it also infringes thearticle 41 which violates the freedom ofprivate economic initiative undermining this freedom of initiative even with a expropriation free of compensation with respect to a possible private shareholder. Lastly, he also infringes a rule of the European law on the protection of investments that are made by European operators in Europe”.
No constitutional relief, however, on the hypothesis that a part of article 6 of the new decree – which lays down rules on the matter of seizures of companies of national strategic interest – may not be in harmony with the Charter. The law requires the magistrates not to seize the plants, but to appoint commissioners or to dictate prescriptions while ensuring the continuation of theproductive activity. But there’s more: in the extreme case in which the magistrate decides to seize, the decree provides that they can present appeal, not only the company – in the case of Taranto, Acciaierie d’Italia – but also the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Enterprise and Made in Italy. And not only. On their appeal one should pronounce not the Court of Review of Taranto, but that of Roma. Yet article 25 of the Constitution provides that “no one can be distracted from the natural judge pre-established by law”: in simpler words it means that if a crime is committed in Taranto, such as for example the issuing of harmful substancesthe “natural” place in which to evaluate any criminal liability – or the measures to be applied – would be the Ionian court and instead the latest decree already provides that the judge competent to decide on criminal matters is Rome.
Morselli obviously doesn’t even touch on the question, but he puts the load on it: in the hearing before the Senate Commission he asked that even administrative matters be transferred to the capital. And therefore any orders made by public bodies against the factory should be discussed in the capital. Environmental associations were also heard in the first round of hearings LegambienteWWf e Peacelink: lasts the position of the associations against the replenishment of the “criminal shield” which seems to want to ensure impunity at the top of the company at the very moment in which it claims to have fulfilled almost all the requirements of the Integrated Environmental Authorisation. Alexander Marescottifor Peacelink, then retraced all the stages that from 2012 characterized the Ilva affair by recalling all the infractions not convictions inflicted on the State by Europe, the interventions of theOms and the UN report which defined Taranto “Zone of Sacrifice”.
I labor unionsFinally, they have once again pointed the finger at it ArcelorMittalprivate shareholder: “The only solution, to avoid the further squandering of public money is a environmental disaster and unmanageable employment, is to link the 750 million to the contextual majority change and therefore of governance. Alternatively, the State reappropriates the strategic asset due to obvious contractual breaches and bankruptcy management “, was the harsh intervention of the Uilm secretary Rocco Palombella. The other issue of “priority importance” for the Fiom-Cgil is “the wording of articles 5 and 7”, which according to the iron and steel manager Gianni Venturi “it risks making the criminal, civil and administrative liability deriving from the possible disappearance violation of the rules established to protect the health and safety of workers. The government “makes a mistake in pouring resources by leaving the current ones corporate structure, with ArcelorMittal as the majority shareholder. This is the only state where public funds are given without a shred of industrial plan”, he argued instead Francis Rizzo dell’Usb. The next January 30thMeanwhile, Acciaierie d’Italia e metalworkers will sit down again at the table: the positions appear so distant that, according to union sources, it will be difficult to reach concrete results.