JUDICIAL ASPECTS

Samuele Pantanali

 

In the second half of the last century, the industrial plant of Torviscosa was involved in numerous legal cases. The subject of the disputes was the damage caused to the Marano lagoon, and to the water bodies flowing into it, by the plant’s discharges. Part of the lye produced during cellulose manufacturing was in fact discharged into the canals serving the plant. The substances released caused anoxia in the water bodies—that is, the disappearance of dissolved oxygen—making aquatic life impossible.

The legal framework in the early decades

Since 1932, with the Consolidated Law on Fishing (Royal Decree 1604/1931), and similarly under all subsequent regulations on the matter, industrial plants have been required to obtain special authorization to discharge wastewater from their production processes into the environment. The SAICI plants in Torviscosa were subject to this authorization from the very beginning of their operations in 1938.

The first authorization, provisional, was granted to the plant in September 1943. Under the Consolidated Law, authorities were required to order the implementation of “any measures necessary to prevent damage to the fishing industry.” The company was therefore instructed to “carry out within six months […] the selected treatment system for the removal of organic substances from the lye [1]”.

Public authorities did not intervene again for the following ten years. It was only in January 1952 that the Prefecture of Udine accused SAICI of failing to build the prescribed treatment plant. It was noted that “such non-compliance has caused pollution of the waters of the Aussa River and the depletion of fish stocks in the Marano and Grado basins, with consequent damage [2].” To obtain renewal of the authorization, SAICI designed a wastewater treatment plant. With the subsequent authorization decree of January 1953, the Prefecture required SAICI to complete the plant within four months [3].

The impact on fishing

The community of Marano Lagunare, whose economy has always been heavily dependent on fishing, had complained since 1938 about the negative impact of discharges from the SNIA plant in Torviscosa on the lagoon. For various reasons, including the war and its aftermath, no concrete action was taken for many years. It was the severe year of 1949, when damage appeared “exceptionally serious,” that prompted the Municipality to consider filing a compensation lawsuit [4].

After appointing a lawyer, attempts were made to reach an out-of-court settlement with SAICI, in the form of compensation to alleviate the hardships faced by the population of Marano. The mayor sought help from local members of Parliament and attempted to arrange meetings with Franco Marinotti, president of SAICI, in Rome. However, no agreement was reached [5]. It was the end of 1952.

In February 1953, eighty fishermen, lagoon farmers, and the Municipality of Marano filed a lawsuit against SAICI before the Court of Udine [6], seeking compensation for damages due to the “destruction of fish stocks” caused by polluting discharges.

The judges appointed three university professors as court experts. After attending the hearings and witness testimonies, they conducted investigations from 1959 to 1962 and submitted their reports. Experts appointed by SAICI also intervened but were unable to invalidate the conclusions reached by the court-appointed experts.

The first-instance judgment was delivered in March 1965. The Court first declared that the Municipality of Marano held the “exclusive fishing right” over the waters of its lagoon—a right also exercised through its citizens [7]. It was established that approximately one-eighth of the lagoon was polluted by industrial discharges from the SAICI plant in Torviscosa via the Ausa-Corno River. This pollution caused the destruction and impairment of fish fauna, which could not survive in those waters. In the areas where these discharges stagnated the most, oxygen levels fell below the minimum necessary to sustain aquatic life, causing suffocation and, in less severe cases, delayed growth.

It was crucial to establish that this phenomenon did not occur in other areas of the lagoon, including the Corno River upstream of the Ausa confluence.

SAICI was found liable and ordered to pay 107,160,000 lire in damages to the Municipality of Marano and the fishermen for the period from 1946 to 1963, plus accrued interest [8]. The company was also ordered to pay an additional sum each year until appropriate measures were implemented to eliminate the harmful effects of the plant’s discharges.

SAICI appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeal of Trieste upheld the first-instance ruling. A further appeal to the Court of Cassation was unsuccessful, and the decisions of the courts of Udine and Trieste became final in March 1972.

Pressure from authorities

Meanwhile, in May 1971, the Civil Engineering Department of Udine also called SNIA to account for pollution caused by the Torviscosa plant. The violation of Law 366/1963, concerning the protection of the Venice and Marano-Grado lagoons, was contested. Industrial discharges from the cellulose extraction plant were still “lacking the necessary treatment facilities” and were a “source of pollution […] with serious harm to fish stocks and public health” [9]. SNIA replied that a settling basin for separating fibrous material was in operation, functioning “to our full satisfaction” [10].

Pressure continued in 1972, this time from the provincial medical officer of Udine. Analyses had revealed severe pollution, and the company was given one year to “implement suitable treatment processes for wastewater” in compliance with the limits set by Ministry of Health circular no. 166/1971 [11]. In October 1973, SNIA stated that the necessary measures to improve discharges had been identified and would be gradually implemented.

The 1974 ruling of the Magistrate of Cervignano

Legal proceedings did not concern only compensation but also involved criminal jurisdiction.

In March 1973, a case was brought against SNIA’s top executives before the Magistrate of Cervignano del Friuli. Two offenses were charged: one under the Consolidated Law on Fishing, protecting fish fauna [12], and another under the Penal Code, punishing the discharge of substances harmful or disturbing to people [13].

Analyses carried out in early 1973 revealed severe pollution in the waters affected by the plant’s discharges. The brown color, caused by a large quantity of suspended solids, and the presence of sulfur dioxide “deprived oxygen from an environment already dramatically deficient” [14]. The effects were, once again, the disappearance of fish fauna and a pungent odor. Little or nothing had changed compared to what had been established in previous rulings.

The company did not deny responsibility; on the contrary, it commissioned a professor from the University of Trieste to develop solutions to reduce pollutants to acceptable levels. In light of this commitment, the Magistrate ordered a further expert assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the systems the company intended to install. The judge acknowledged the “significant economic and technical effort to seek independent solutions to achieve, within reasonable timeframes, a concrete reduction in pollution levels.”

The case concluded in December 1974 with the acquittal of all defendants, “because the act does not constitute a crime.” This formula recognized that the conduct had occurred but was not punishable as a criminal offense. A “general state of good faith” was acknowledged on the part of the managers, also due to the “prolonged tolerance of the authorities” and the “possession of valid authorization.” According to the Magistrate, the defendants had no alternatives, and their actions should not be judged negatively “merely because they were also aimed at industrial and productive survival.” Many argued that “good faith” could not be invoked, considering the outcome of the previous civil case, which appeared to have been disregarded by the judge [15].

Pollution from lye discharges continued in the following decades.

The Merli Law

Examining the nature of the offenses charged against SNIA in 1973 reveals the fragmented nature of the legal framework at the time. Laws protected individual aspects and specific uses of water bodies, such as fishing and the absence of unpleasant odors.

The first comprehensive legislation for water protection came into force only in the second half of the 1970s: the so-called “Merli Law” (Law no. 319 of 10 May 1976). It established maximum concentration limits for discharged substances and required all parties to obtain discharge authorization. Violations constituted a criminal offense.

SNIA applied for authorization to the Provincial Administration of Udine. The Province never responded, and authorization was deemed granted under the silence-consent mechanism provided by the law [16].

Developments in the 1980s

Law no. 650 of 24 December 1979 transferred to the regions the authority to authorize works for adapting discharges to the standards of the Merli Law.

On 27 February 1980, SNIA (which that year changed its name to “Chimica del Friuli S.p.A.”) requested authorization from the Region to implement its discharge adaptation plan. The Region approved the request on 26 May 1980.

A further criminal ruling by the Magistrate of Cervignano followed in 1983 [17]. The executives of Chimica del Friuli were acquitted of the charge of damage because analyses carried out in June 1983 complied with “Table C” of the Merli Law. These tables provided for a gradual tightening of water quality standards. The stricter standards of “Table A” came into force on 1 March 1986.

In 1984, SNIA stated that it had abandoned the project to adapt the cellulose plant’s discharges to the standards of “Table A,” noting that “implementation timelines appear unrealistic, also due to the lack of adequate research tools” [18].

Further analyses in 1987 and 1988 showed that severe pollution persisted [19]. Little had changed since the 1960s. The plant continued to discharge substances that prevented aquatic life, and the limits imposed by the Merli Law were systematically exceeded.

Given these findings, the Magistrate of Cervignano asked the mayor of Torviscosa what measures had been taken (8 July 1988). The mayor replied that they were awaiting the construction of a new sewer collector for Lower Friuli, the so-called “tubone” (6 August 1988) [20].

The Magistrate urged the mayor again, indicating that revoking the discharge authorization would have been a necessary act (7 October 1988). The same response was given: they were waiting for the “tubone” to become operational (11 November 1988).

The 1991 ruling of the Magistrate of Cervignano

In March 1989, the mayor of Torviscosa received a judicial notice from the Magistrate’s Court of Cervignano, as had already been sent to the executives of Chimica del Friuli. All were charged with failing to comply with the limits set by “Table A” of the Merli Law [21].

The first-instance judgment was delivered in September 1991. According to the Magistrate, the situation involved “not episodic events […] but rather blatant and long-standing discharges exceeding permitted limits to a very significant extent.” The problem of pollution, the judgment stated, “has always been inherent in the very nature of the production process, and its solution requires fundamental decisions by the company, both in terms of resources to be allocated […] and possible changes to production cycles.”

The mayor was instead charged with failing to take the necessary actions to resolve the situation. The judge stated: “as a health authority, he was required to adopt all necessary measures to eliminate the damage caused by pollution, since the legal system did not allow him to act otherwise.”

All defendants, convicted at first instance and on appeal, were ultimately acquitted in 1994 by the Court of Cassation: the CEO due to the statute of limitations; the company president and the mayor “for not having committed the act.”

Conclusion

The “tubone” was eventually built. It came into operation in February 1992 and is still in use today. However, the cellulose plant at the Torviscosa industrial site had been shut down a few months earlier, in November 1991, leaving the new infrastructure underutilized.

The events outlined here clearly show the complex and delicate balance between environmental protection and economic and social demands.

It can be stated, without fear of contradiction, that the employment importance of the SNIA plant in the area delayed the necessary environmental interventions and contributed to the prolonged tolerance of public authorities.

If it is true that looking at the past helps us make better decisions for the future, the history of the Torviscosa industrial complex highlights the need to respect sustainability in all its three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental.

Note

1. Decreto del Prefetto di Udine n. 20036/III del 24 settembre 1943.
2. ARCHIVIO STORICO DEL COMUNE DI TORVISCOSA (d’ora in poi ASCT), Carteggio amministrativo (1952), Cat. XI, Classe 2, Prefettura di Udine, Prot. n. 4287/III 25 gennaio 1952, «Inquinamento del fiume Aussa e impoverimento del patrimonio ittico».
3. Cfr. Prefettura di Udine, Prot. n. 362/III 7 gennaio 1953, in: . Nel decreto di autorizzazione veniva espressamente indicato che «l’immissione di tali rifiuti, giusto le approfondite ed accurate indagini, svolte dal Laboratorio di Igiene e Profilassi di Udine e dallo Stabilimento Ittiogenico di Brescia, provoca un impoverimento delle acque con conseguente impoverimento del patrimonio ittico delle lagune di Marano e Grado […]».
4. A ricostruire le tappe di una storia iniziata diversi anni prima è una relazione del sindaco, allegata alla delibera del Consiglio comunale di Marano n. 20 del 14 marzo 1954.
5. A causa delle continue assenze di Marinotti, però, non fu possibile giungere ad alcuna conclusione. Il sindaco riportava che «Improvvisamente Fonzo mi scrisse che il Marinotti era sparito da Roma proprio alla vigilia del giorno stabilito per la riunione decisiva, nella quale cioè si doveva stabilire ormai soltanto l’ammontare e la forma del risarcimento».
6. Il Tribunale di Udine si dichiarò competente a trattare le pretese di risarcimento dei pescatori e del Comune, ma non le richieste dei vallicoltori. Questi ultimi, che utilizzavano l’acqua della laguna per alimentare le loro valli, agivano in giudizio invocando l’articolo 844 del codice civile, che può fondare la richiesta di un indennizzo, concetto differente da quello di ‘risarcimento’. L’articolo 844 cerca di bilanciare le esigenze delle attività industriali e la proprietà privata di terzi. Ai terzi spetta di ricevere un indennizzo quando le immissioni che causano molestie o limitazioni del diritto di proprietà – e che non possono cessare perché necessarie alla produzione – risultino intollerabili. Questo accertamento era di competenza del Tribunale delle acque – cui fu rinviata la causa.
7. Il Tribunale di Udine prima, e la Corte d’appello di Trieste poi, dichiararono che il Comune di Marano e i pescatori godono di un «diritto esclusivo di pesca, diritto reale soggettivo, di natura patrimoniale, liberamente trasferibile e negoziabile, e pertanto tutelato dalla legge contro ogni attentato o atto lesivo altrui».
8. L’ammontare del risarcimento fu stimato dal Tribunale in via equitativa. I giudici quantificarono il danno sulla base di quanto indicato nella relazione degli esperti e nei documenti forniti dai pescatori di Marano. Venne stimata una perdita di 130 quintali di pescato all’anno per il periodo 1946-1955, e 260 quintali all’anno nel periodo 1956-1963.
9. ASCT, Controllo ambientale, Tutela delle acque, b. 6, fasc. 9, Indagini del Magistrato delle acque del Genio civile di Udine sugli scarichi industriali. La normativa di riferimento era la Legge 5 marzo 1963, n. 366, “Nuove norme relative alle lagune di Venezia e di Marano-Grado”, in particolare gli articoli 3, 5, 7, 10 e 30.
10. ASCT, Controllo ambientale, Tutela delle acque, b. 5, fasc. 5, Snia Viscosa: richiesta all’esercizio degli scarichi industriali.
11. Cfr. ASCT, Controllo ambientale, Tutela delle acque, b. 7, fasc. 6, e Ministero della Salute Pubblica, Circolare n. 166.
12. Cfr. Articolo 6 del T.U. Pesca (R.D. 1604/1931): «è vietato di gettare od infondere nelle acque materie atte ad intorpidire, stordire od uccidere i pesci e gli altri animali acquatici. […] si applicano, congiuntamente od alternativamente, l’arresto da 10 giorni a 6 mesi e l’ammenda da L. 500 a L. 2000».
13. Cfr. Articolo 674 del codice penale: «chiunque getta o versa […] cose atte a offendere o imbrattare o molestare persone […] è punito con l’arresto fino a un mese o con l’ammenda fino a lire duemila».
14. Le analisi indicavano un superamento di diversi limiti di accettabilità degli scarichi industriali, secondo una circolare del Ministero della sanità del 02/07/1973: l’odore acre (non doveva essere causa di molestie); il colore bruno (non doveva essere percettibile); i solidi sospesi; i valori di BOD5 e COD (indicatori indiretti della presenza di ossigeno nell’acqua).
15. Si veda il parere reso dall’avvocato Piero Zanfagnini al Comune di Torviscosa, in [FA 1977_1].
16. Per approfondire, vedi sezione “Processi di bonifica”.
17. Cfr. ASCT, Controllo ambientale, Tutela delle acque, b. 5, fasc.  4, «Controlli del Laboratorio chimico provinciale d’igiene di Udine sugli scarichi della Snia viscosa (1976 – 1979)».
18. ASCT, Controllo ambientale, Industria Chimica del Friuli, b. 10, fasc. 2, Crisi occupazionale – relazione Waste management inc. (1984 – 1993), Comunicazione amministratore delegato.
19. Cfr. ASCT, Controllo ambientale, Tutela delle acque, b. 6, fasc.  5, Analisi dell’acqua del fiume Aussa (1987).
20. Cfr. ASCT, Controllo ambientale, Tutela delle acque, b. 6, fasc.  3, Carteggio con la Pretura di Cervignano del Friuli (1988).
21. Cfr. ASCT, Controllo ambientale, Tutela delle acque, b. 6, fasc.  2, Incarico all’Avv. Lino Comand – consulenza legale sul problema degli scarichi (..) (1989). Si veda anche il comunicato stampa del Comune di Torviscosa (26 maggio 1989) e la lettera dell’assessore regionale all’ambiente che intervenne a difesa dell’operato dell’Amministrazione comunale (21 giugno 1989).