SOMMARIO:

1. Premesse: l’inquadramento della vicenda.

2. L’analisi del caso giuridico attraverso l’iter cronologico degli eventi.

2.1. L’intervento del giudice penale: l’adozione della misura cautelare per la salvaguardia dell’ambiente e della salute degli abitanti della città di Taranto.

2.2 L’intervento dell’Amministrazione: il riesame dell’AIA per la prosecuzione dell’attività produttiva.

2.3. L’intervento del legislatore: l’approvazione del decreto “ad Ilvam” per neutralizzare gli effetti della misura cautelare. 

2.4. La pronuncia della Corte costituzionale: la sentenza n. 85/2013. 

Osservazioni conclusive.

Abstract:

The legal issue concerning the Ilva steel plant in Taranto can be described as a
real hard case for the balance of constitutional values, a case study useful in assessing the balance between values and constitutional interests operated by public administration, judges and legislator: a case that has affected, according to their respective sphere of competence, all the public powers, even causing an institutional conflict between the legislature and the judiciary. The intervention of the judges who were involved in the case has demonstrated the “political” and “unstable” nature of the balancing between conflicting constitutional values. The judicial power has experienced the plural dimension of our constitutional heritage: both criminal judges and the Constitutional Court have not only operated a balance between opposing values, but also mediate between rule of law and the requirements imposed by the economic, productive and social issues of an entire city.