Abstract
The tenth anniversary since the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of a resolution recognising the right to water is a good occasion for taking stock of Italy’s efforts in implementing this right. The human rights discourse in water matters has often resonated in civil society’s initiatives in the last decade, so that it cannot be excluded that these stances have influenced the relatively fast evolution of the Italian legislation in this field. Indeed, in the very last years some laws have been passed that require the competent regulatory authority – ARERA – to take into account the basic needs of users in formulating the pricing scheme for what is known as the integrated water service, as well as in putting forth the rules limiting disconnection from the service. The authority, however, has not been the only institutional actor to move in this direction: governmental bodies at any level have done so, from Municipalities to Regions, up to the national legislature. Even though this process has not been devoid of some conflictual aspects, which have also involved the judiciary, something that can be called a “right to water” is definitely taking shape in Italy – as the Country’s domestic legal system and foreign policy seem to witness.
Paolo Turrini: Author of Sect. 11.4 (on Italy’s domestic policy) and co-author of the Introduction and the Conclusions.
Marco Pertile: Author of Sects. 11.2 (on the right to water in general) and 11.3 (on the Italian foreign policy) and co-author of the Introduction and the Conclusions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
On the cultural relationship of Italians with water see, in this volume, Chap. 4 by Oncini and Forno.
- 2.
Laboratorio REF Ricerche, “Un anno di acqua in pillole” (22 March 2018) www.refricerche.it/it/un-anno-di-acqua-in-pillole
- 3.
See Arts. 20, Para. 1; 26, Para. 3; 29, Para. 3; and 46, Para. 3, of the Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949; Arts. 85, Para. 3; 89, Para. 3; and 127, Para. 2, of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949.
- 4.
UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/64/292 of 3 August 2010; Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/15/9 of 6 October 2010. See also, Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/16/2 of 8 April 2011; UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/74/141 of 18 December 2019.
- 5.
UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/169 of 17 December 2015.
- 6.
For the declarations of the States and the record of the vote, see General Assembly, Sixty-fourth session, 108th plenary meeting, Wednesday, 28 July 2010, 10 a.m., New York – UN Doc. UNGA A/64/PV.108.
- 7.
Ibidem.
- 8.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, 5 August 2015, UN Doc. A/HRC/30/39, Paras. 6–7.
- 9.
Ibidem.
- 10.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation (Léo Heller), 21 July 2020, UN Doc. A/75/208, Para. 4. The previous Special Rapporteur, Ms. Catarina de Albuquerque, had taken a more neutral stance on the governance regime of water in national legal orders: Report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, 29 June 2010, UN Doc. A/HRC/15/31, Paras. 6–10; Report of the special rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, 5 August 2015, UN Doc. A/HRC/30/39, Paras. 21, 37.
- 11.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, 21 July 2020, UN Doc. A/75/208.
- 12.
Ibidem, Para. 64.
- 13.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, Para. 7 and Goal 6.
- 14.
European Court of Justice, Opinion no. 2/13 of 18 December 2014.
- 15.
The text of the European Consultation Initiative and the Political Demands of the campaign are available at: www.right2water.eu/about
- 16.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens’ Initiative “Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity!”, COM (2014) 177 final, p. 4.
- 17.
European Parliament resolution of 8 September 2015 on the follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water (2014/2239(INI)).
- 18.
Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption.
- 19.
European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) COM (2017) 753 final, Art. 16.
- 20.
The following databases have been consulted and searched by keyword: https://documents.un.org; https://digitallibrary.un.org; www.esteri.it/mae/it/politica_estera
- 21.
Statement delivered by Italy at the High-Level Event to Launch the International Decade for Action, “Water For Sustainable Development”, 2018–2028, 23 March 2018, available at: https://italyun.esteri.it/rappresentanza_onu/it/comunicazione/archivio-news/2018/03/assemblea-generale-evento-di-alto.html
- 22.
Candidature of Italy to the Human Rights Council, 2019–2021, Voluntary pledges and commitments pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251, UN Doc. A/73/72, 26 February 2018. The documents related to the UN human rights system are available at: https://uhri.ohchr.org/en/
- 23.
The documents of the UN Monitoring System are available at the Universal Human Rights Index: https://uhri.ohchr.org/en. A searchable database on the UPR is also available at: www.upr-info.org/en
- 24.
The data are available at: https://openaid.aics.gov.it
- 25.
On the management models of water services and the influence of the European Union see, in this volume, Chap. 13 by Parisio.
- 26.
Actually, the same obligation was also present in Article 13, Paragraph 2, of Law no. 36/1994 (so-called “Legge Galli”), then repealed by Legislative Decree no. 152/2006, and it was detailed, as far as the fixed remuneration rate was concerned (7%), by Decree of the Minister of Public Works of 1 August 1996. On this see Council of State, Sect. II, opinion no. 267 of 19 December 2012, declaring the implicit abrogation of the latter decree after the referendum.
- 27.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 26 of 12 January 2011.
- 28.
Regional Administrative Tribunal – Lombardy (Milan), Sect. II, judgment no. 779 of 20 February 2014; confirmed by Council of State, judgment no. 2481 of 15 December 2016.
- 29.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 24 of 12 January 2011.
- 30.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 199 of 17 July 2012.
- 31.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 46 of 13 March 2013.
- 32.
Of course, this does not mean that each and every supporter of the campaign saw these concepts as intertwined, nor can this analysis be taken as a proof that all promoters of the right to water think that its recognition passes through the public management of water services. For instance – and unsurprisingly – the National Council of Lawyers (Consiglio Nazionale Forense) has repeatedly taken side with the recognition of the right to water (in 2015, it signed a manifesto and then it took similar initiatives, including the signing of a similar manifesto in Rabat in 2019), but it has paid attention not to link this right with the issues of management and communal property.
- 33.
For instance, at the end of October 2020 the Municipal Council of Fucecchio adopted a motion approving the Charter.
- 34.
On water as commons see also, in this volume, Chap. 5 by Boscolo.
- 35.
Court of Cassation, Joint Sects., judgment no. 3665 of 24 November 2010.
- 36.
Regional Tribunal for Public Waters – Court of Appeal of Florence, judgment of 8 January 1996; Higher Tribunal for Public Waters, judgment no. 147 of 5 October 2009. Both rulings are quoted in Camerlengo (2017).
- 37.
Higher Tribunal for Public Waters, judgment no. 77 of 21 June 2004. Again, the source is Camerlengo (2017).
- 38.
Article 1 of the proposal quotes waters as the first example of common goods. Interestingly, in 2014 the Constitutional Court defined waters “a common good”, as a justification for the awarding of concessions to private companies only upon payment, as society must be compensated for such a personal use of a public resource: judgment no. 64 of 26 March 2014.
- 39.
The text of the initiative was deposited in December 2018 at the Court of Cassation. The website of the Chamber of Deputies states that the text was deposited in November 2019 at the Parliament (Bill no. C.2237), but that the proponents failed to collect the 50,000 signatures needed for the Parliament to discuss the bill.
- 40.
Commission for Civic Uses – Lazio, Umbria and Tuscany, judgment no. 18 of 7 February 2020. See also, of the same court, judgment no. 2 of 18 January 2021.
- 41.
The survey, conducted by Cittadinanzattiva with the support of many fellow NGOs, is titled “Le percezioni e le abitudini dei cittadini nell’uso della risorsa e del servizio idrico” (5 June 2020) www.cittadinanzattiva.it/files/notizie/consumatori/Presentazione_dati_Consultazione_acqua.pdf. A sample of 2574 people was surveyed.
- 42.
L. Tadini, La situazione delle Case dell’Acqua in Italia (11 October 2017) http://docplayer.it/69185431-La-situazione-delle-case-dell-acqua-in-italia.html. An (amateurish) attempt at mapping water kiosks has also been made: https://gwsonline.it/case-dell-acqua-italia/#:~:text=Le%20case%20dell’acqua%20in,Kg)%20per%20ogni%20chiosco%20installato
- 43.
Of course, an individual and collective right to a healthy environment has been singled out and refined over the years by the Constitutional Court in its case law (Della Giustina 2020). However – as a demonstration of the advantages of clear and straightforward choices – the option of amending the Constitution so as to include such a right has surfaced many times in doctrinal and political debates. As of 2020, no less than seven legislative proposals have been deposited at the Senate, and five at the Chamber of Deputies (the two houses of the Italian Parliament).
- 44.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 54 of 15 June 1979. The judgment, that was about the extradition of a person to a country where the death penalty existed for the crime he was accused of, also extended Art. 3 of the Constitution to foreigners – although the text of such provision grants the right to equality before the law to Italian citizens only – as a fundamental right was at stake.
- 45.
Even though, by means of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, EU law kind of “absorbs” the rights of the European Convention, among which the right to water can be read (see supra Sect. 11.2.3), the Constitutional Court traced the protection of the Convention’s rights back to Article 117: judgments nos. 348 and 349 of 22 October 2007 and, after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, no. 80 of 7 March 2011.
- 46.
See supra Sect. 11.4.1.
- 47.
See Constitutional Court, judgment no. 317 of 4 December 2009, referring to the protection offered by the European Convention of Human Rights. A position that could be traced back to more or less the same principle, but in relation to Article 11 rather than Article 117 sources, is in Constitutional Court, judgment no. 227 of 24 June 2010, where EU law was said to find a limit in the basic tenets of the Italian constitutional order, as well as in the “greater protection” (maggior tutela) of human rights. Neither judgment, though, provides a conflict rule whereby clashes of different constitutional rights can be solved. This is, however, what the Court is interested in, from a systemic point of view: Constitutional Court, judgment no. 264 of 19 November 2012. Anyway, the Court partly distanced itself from this approach with judgment no. 49 of 14 January 2015, where it declared the “axiological prevalence” of the Italian Constitution with respect to other sources of human rights. These and other judgments are discussed in Colacino (2018).
- 48.
For the possibility that an unexpressed right is spoken of as if it were a fundamental right, see, e.g., Constitutional Court, judgment no. 93 of 8 March 2010.
- 49.
Atto Senato no. 1593 (11 July 2002) www.senato.it/leg/14/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/18002.htm
- 50.
Atto Senato no. 237 (4 May 2006) www.senato.it/leg/15/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/24564.htm
- 51.
Atto Camera no. 1776 (4 October 2006) http://leg15.camera.it/_dati/leg15/lavori/schedela/trovaschedacamera_wai.asp?Pdl=1776
- 52.
Atto Camera no. 2628 (22 July 2009) https://leg16.camera.it/126?pdl=2628
- 53.
Atto Camera no. 174 (15 March 2013) www.camera.it/leg17/126?pdl=174
- 54.
On this regard, it can be noted that such an addition would be legitimate, as it would not “undermine or modify the essential content” of the “highest principles” on which the Italian Constitution is based – an intransgressible limit that the Constitutional Court has put forth in its case law: see Constitutional Court, judgment no. 1146 of 15 December 1988.
- 55.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 259 of 10 July 1996. Along the same lines, Constitutional Court, judgment no. 419 of 12 December 1996.
- 56.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 273 of 7 July 2010. The reference to solidarity was also present in judgment no. 259 quoted in the previous footnote, if only because a solidarity-driven use of water was mandated by Law no. 36/1994 – and now by Legislative Decree no. 152/2006.
- 57.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 407 of 10 July 2002 (re-affirming its pre-2001 reform case law).
- 58.
This was in fact part of a broader institutional conflict on water governance between State and Regions, on which see, in this volume, Chap. 15 by Alberton.
- 59.
See, recently, Constitutional Court, judgment no. 173 of 6 June 2017.
- 60.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 14 of 18 December 2003.
- 61.
The qualification of public services as non-economic in nature would move them outside the sphere of exclusive competence of the State: see Constitutional Court, judgment no. 272 of 13 July 2004. As to water services in particular, this might not be enough to confer some legislative power to Regions, given that such services belong to the reserved domain of the State also for their environmental purpose. In the same judgment the Court also tied, as it will eventually do in judgment no. 325 cited in the subsequent footnote, the domestic notion of “economic importance” (rilevanza economica) in with the EU concept of “service of general economic interest”: to the purpose of this chapter, it is interesting to note that under Article 36 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Title IV – Solidarity), “[t]he Union recognises and respects access to services of general economic interest as provided for in national laws and practices, in accordance with the Treaties, in order to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union”. However, for the EU Charter Explanations this sentence “does not create any new right” and adds nothing to Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 303, 14 December 2007, p. 27). The EU Court of Justice, in turn, becomes quite elusive any time Article 36 is invoked: see Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 7 September 2016 in case no. C-121/15; judgment of 3 October 2019 in case no. C-285/18; judgment of 30 April 2020 in case no. C-5/19 (in any case, such decisions are still of some relevance as they expand the Court’s case law on the “dos and don’ts” in matters of provisions of services of general economic interest – thus comprising, in Italy, water services). More explicit is Protocol no. 26 attached to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, according to which the “shared values” evoked by Article 14 of the Treaty include “a high level of quality, safety and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal access and of user rights” (OJ C 115, 9 May 2008, p. 308).
- 62.
Constitutional Court, judgments nos. 325 of 3 November 2010 (Campania) and 187 of 8 June 2011 (Marche).
- 63.
Under EU law, services of general economic interest are understood as services provided in return for payment unless competition rules prevent them from accomplishing their tasks in the general interest. The principle of integral coverage of costs says nothing on the way such expenses can be apportioned between private users and the State (whose support can be scrutinised in the light of EU State aid law): as to water services in particular, the WFD, in setting out the principle of the full recovery of costs, requires that all categories of users (including households) pay an “adequate contribution”, but also clarifies that Member States may “have regard to the social […] and economic effects” of the resulting allocation of costs (Article 9). It should be recalled that, in spite of Article 154 of Legislative Decree no. 152/2006, mentioned below, the Consulta clarified that water service revenues “may have any origin, including public funds”: Constitutional Court, judgments nos. 325 of 3 November 2010 and 26 of 12 January 2011. Such an approach is capable of sheltering the right to water from any unbridled application of free market logic.
- 64.
Constitutional Court, judgments no. 246 of 16 July 2009; no. 29 of 27 January 2010; and no. 117 of 12 May 2015.
- 65.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 142 of 14 April 2010. For the sake of precision, Regional Law no. 19/2015 referred to “zone territoriali e soggetti svantaggiati”, which could also be translated as “disadvantaged territorial areas and users” (which would have implemented social concerns in both an individual dimension and a collective one).
- 66.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 67 of 8 April 2013.
- 67.
- 68.
To the Municipalities that took this step – more than those named in the text – other ones should be added were such a recognition was proposed by members of the Municipal Council or even voted as a motion by the Council’s majority. In many such documents water was defined a common good devoid of economic importance (a further demonstration that all these concepts are usually seen as intertwined).
- 69.
See supra Sect. 11.4.1.
- 70.
Irrespective of such impacts, it has been maintained in a more principled way that this commercial characterisation of the water service naturally conflicts with the human right to water, which should be inspired by social considerations. Still unfriendly to this right would thus be the choice, also hinted at here below, of differentiating the conditions of water provision according to the types of users, e.g., first homes and touristic resorts (Urbinati 2015, pp. 588–590). We do not share this view, for the simple reason that, as currently understood, the right to water does not imply that water services be removed from the orbit of economic services. The mere fact that no one is left without water is enough for declaring the right to water fulfilled, provided that the payment for water supply does not weigh too much on the user’s budget. In other words, fulfilment of the right is construed less as a means than as an end.
- 71.
Regional Administrative Tribunal – Tuscany (Florence), Sect. I, judgment no. 712 of 22 May 2018.
- 72.
Regional Administrative Tribunal – Lazio (Latina), Sect. I, judgments no. 711 of 8 October 2015 and no. 773 of 19 November 2015.
- 73.
Regional Administrative Tribunal – Campania (Naples), Sect. V, judgment no. 5482 of 8 October 2015.
- 74.
Regional Administrative Tribunal – Apulia (Lecce), Sect. I, judgment no. 1189 of 6 July 2016 (quoting previous judgments along the same lines).
- 75.
Regional Administrative Tribunal – Sicily (Palermo), Sect. III, judgment no. 290 of 25 January 2013.
- 76.
Regional Administrative Tribunal – Sardinia (Cagliari), Sect. I, judgment no. 855 of 10 June 2015.
- 77.
Regional Administrative Tribunal – Calabria (Catanzaro), Sect. II, judgment no. 358 of 22 March 2012.
- 78.
Constitutional Court, judgment no. 335 of 8 October 2008.
- 79.
See, inter alia, Council of State, judgment no. 3920 of 31 May 2011; Court of Cassation, III Civil Sect., judgment no. 8318 of 15 February 2011; Court of Cassation, VI Civil Sect., judgment no. 25112 of 12 November 2015; Court of Cassation, III Civil Sect., judgment no. 3314 of 16 October 2019; Justice of the Peace of Pozzuoli, judgment no. 2652 of 17 July 2013. In the last judgment, albeit referring to the contract at issue, the judge identified three distinct services: water provision, collection and removal of wastewater, and purification of wastewater. More generally, it seems that the payment for the water treatment service is not due even if it is bound to flow into a fund aimed at financing the building of a treatment plant.
- 80.
Incidentally, the threshold beyond which water is to be considered “flawed” can be debated, and the limit values set by the law for potability are not necessarily the only parameter. On this aspect, a judge has recently rejected the thesis of a Municipality that no contractual breach had occurred because of the difference between the notions of water for domestic use and drinking water (Tribunal of Viterbo, Sect. I, judgment no. 699 of 29 May 2019).
- 81.
Justice of the Peace of Reggio Calabria , judgment of 2 January 1997 (see Il Foro Italiano, 120(5), 1658–1663).
- 82.
Ibidem; most recently, Tribunal of Viterbo, Sect. I, judgment no. 699 of 29 May 2019 (but, in between, other judges have taken this approach based on equity, like the Justice of the Peace of Civita Castellana in 2013). An alternative option is the application of the tariff for “raw” (i.e., non-purified) water: see Justice of the Peace of Cagliari, judgment no. 1453 of 31 December 2018.
- 83.
Court of Cassation, judgment no. 2182 of 13 October 2015.
- 84.
Tribunal of Mantua, judgment of 11 February 2014. On this, cf. Art. 5, Para. 2, of Legislative Decree no. 31/2001.
- 85.
For instance, in a case the water company was not found liable for the scarce quality of water as the problem depended on a part of the distribution network that was not covered by the concession: Regional Administrative Tribunal – Tuscany (Florence), Sect. I, judgment no. 712 of 22 May 2018.
- 86.
See, in this volume, Chap. 7 by De Santis and Fermeglia.
- 87.
Atto Camera no. 2212 (20 March 2014) www.camera.it/leg17/126?tab=1&leg=17&idDocumento=2212. The bill’s first signatory was the same MP who is also first signatory of Bill no. C.52, which has been proposed as an updated and expanded version of Bill no. C.2212. This had indeed been discussed and amended by the only house of the Parliament (the Chamber of Deputies) that approved it. While it was being discussed by the Senate (under the new name of Bill no. S.2343), the legislature ended.
- 88.
Atto Senato no. 1845 (2 November 2009) www.senato.it/leg/16/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/34420.htm
- 89.
It might be useful to know that agricultural and industrial uses do not correspond to agricultural and industrial users as for the integrated water service. If water used to cool down a machine in a production plant is an industrial use for sure, the water service only provides water to, say, the restrooms for office workers, or the showers for workmen. The factory (that stipulated the service contract) is an industrial user only in respect of the latter uses.
- 90.
On this possibility see again, in this volume, Chap. 5 by Boscolo. For a similar case, see supra n. 37.
- 91.
Regional Tribunal for Public Waters – Court of Appeal of Rome, judgment no. 12 of 4 February 2008.
- 92.
Court of Cassation, Joint Civil Sects., judgment no. 11126 of 14 January 2020.
- 93.
The important role of ARERA in the water policy of Italy is discussed in many other chapters of this volume: see the Index for learning all references.
- 94.
The Decision, made in July 2019 but modified later that year, is to be read together with its Attachment, which contains the actual rules on default. The attachment, too, has been repeatedly amended, through Decisions nos. 547/2019/R/IDR, 186/2020/R/IDR and 221/2020/R/IDR (www.arera.it/allegati/docs/19/311-19remsi.pdf)
- 95.
In Article 7, Paragraphs 6 to 8, the Decision explicitly addresses the case of blocks of flats, which, despite hosting multiple households, usually stipulate a common contract of service with the managing company. This serves the purpose of protecting the majority of residents against the minority – possibly only one household – that defaults on its water bills. Before ARERA stated clear rules on this circumstance, case law – which in the 2010s had been abundant – was mixed. Some tribunals had ruled that turning off the tap of the defaulting resident was prohibited as it would have been in breach of the right to health enshrined in Article 32 of the Constitution; many other courts, however, had stated the opposite, by saying that the paying residents’ right not to be disadvantaged be the presence of another resident unwilling or unable to pay was overriding. The latter approach had also manifested itself with a particular slant: according to some judges, a resident could be legitimately suspended the supply of water even if his/her debt did not concern the water bill, as in an apartment complex the default on a payment (e.g., of the rent) can be “fined” with the interruption of a service unrelated to the object of the (non-)payment.
- 96.
Although there are other private users who cannot be denied water provision, the main category of such users is that of the recipients of the so-called “water bonus”. In 2020, being entitled to such a bonus required an ISEE (Indicatore della situazione economica equivalente – Index of Equivalent Economic Condition) amounting to less than ca. €8.200 (as per Decision no. 499/2019/R/COM). Just as a term of comparison with no real statistical value, in 2017 the average ISEE equalled ca. €11.400, whereas the median one (that is, the figure dividing in half the group of Italian households that communicated their own ISEE to the State for social purposes) was slightly less than €7.900 – which, in turn, is slightly less than the ISEE needed to benefit from the water bonus. See Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche sociali (2019).
- 97.
Court of Cassation, Criminal Sect. VI, judgment no. 41069 of 2 October 2014.
- 98.
These rulings seem to be too many to be quoted here and, moreover, the original text of most of them is really hard to find, so that listing them here would border with recounting anecdotes de relato. A lot of observations could be done on the issue: of chronological nature (many judgments referred to – but not all of them! – predate the series of rulings by TARs that, as stated above, recognise the legitimacy of the suspension of the water service: the scenario has changed a lot in recent years, so that the judgment no. 2148 of 21 February 1992 of the Court of Cassation, where the interruption of the water service by a Municipality was deemed to entitle the user to a swift restoration of water provision, unless the Municipal decision had been taken in the public interest, would appear to come out from prehistory, had something similar not been restated by the same Court (Civil Sect. III) more recently, with judgment no. 16894 of 10 August 2016); of organisational nature (the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals and of TARs runs in parallel, but with points of contact); and of more specific nature. Indeed, innumerable are the differences among the cases: e.g., related to the subject who interrupts the provision of water (a water company, a Municipality, or, as in judgment no. 16894, a landlord), to the user (a single household or a block of flats under a common service contract: see supra n. 95), or to other particularities of the facts (for instance, if it can be ascertained that the debt only concerns an appurtenance of the house, such as a garage, the supply of water cannot be suspended for the whole building: Tribunal of Fermo, warrant no. 703 of 23 March 2016). The issue is too complex to be dealt with here in greater detail.
- 99.
Tribunal of Palermo, judgment of 10 January 2000 (see Il Foro Italiano, 123(6), 2052–2056). Such an inhibition was anchored not on the damage that the application of the clauses might have caused to the user, but on the nature of the right to be fulfilled, or the need to be met, through the contract.
- 100.
On the notion of integrated water service and the legal framework governing it see, in this volume, Chap. 13 by Parisio.
- 101.
One of the questions proposed in the context of the already mentioned 2011 referendum – a question that, however, was declared to be inadmissible by the Constitutional Court with judgment no. 27 of 12 January 2011 – aimed at the deletion of this part of Article 15, Paragraph 1 ter.
- 102.
On the features of the right to water according to these documents see supra Sect. 11.2. Also of some interest is the fact that, well before international campaigns on the recognition of the right to water led to identifying and then popularising such a figure, Italy had already reached a somewhat similar conclusion. Indeed, Paragraph 8.2 of the Attachment to Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 4 March 1996 states that an amount not inferior to 150 litres per capita per day must be guaranteed by the service provider to all users, and that, of this quantity, no less than 50 litres must be potable. These numbers only referred to the minimum amount of water to be provided, irrespective of its price.
- 103.
For the requirement whose fulfilment entitles users to claim the bonus, see supra n. 96.
- 104.
ARERA , “I numeri dei servizi pubblici”, Press Release www.arera.it/allegati/relaz_ann/20/ra20_numeri.pdf
- 105.
ARERA, “Acqua: rafforzato il valore del Bonus sociale idrico, esteso anche ai titolari di reddito di cittadinanza”, Press Release (16 January 2020) www.arera.it/it/com_stampa/20/200115.htm
- 106.
On this see, in this volume, Chap. 17 by Massarutto.
- 107.
Although conducted by distinct consumer organisations and thus not necessarily homogeneous from a statistical point of view, it may be interesting to know that, in 2019, the water bill of the average family totalled about 430 euro, whereas the electricity bill and the gas bill amounted to 560 euro and 1100 euro, respectively.
References
Aguilar Cavallo, G. (2012). The human right to water and sanitation: From political commitments to customary rule? Pace International Law Review Online Companion, 2012(2), 136–200.
Algostino, A. (2013). Riflessioni sui beni comuni tra il “pubblico” e la Costituzione. Costituzionalismo.it, 2013(3), 1–43.
ARERA. (2020). Relazione annuale 2020 – Volume 1: Attività svolta 2019. www.arera.it/allegati/relaz_ann/20/RA20_volume2.pdf
Armeni. (2008). The right to water in Italy. IELRC Briefing Paper 2008(1), 1–8.
Bakker, K. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter-globalization, anti-privatization and the human right to water in the global South. Antipode, 39(3), 430–455.
Basile, R. (2018). La tutela delle acque e il servizio idrico integrato nella Regione siciliana tra esigenza di una disciplina uniforme e istanze di differenziazione normativa. Federalismi.it, Paper no. 12/2018, 1–18.
Bates, R. (2010). The road to the well: An evaluation of the customary right to water. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 2010(19), 282–293.
Berardi, D., & Casarico, F. (2016). La nazionalizzazione dell’industria idrica è una proposta irresponsabile. Laboratorio REF Ricerche, Paper no. 56, 1–12.
Berardi, D., & Casarico, F. (2018). PdL Daga. Costo 20 miliardi: debito o tasse? Laboratorio REF Ricerche, Paper no. 108, 1–13.
Berardi, D., & Signori, F. (2018). Il diritto all’acqua: esperienze a confronto. Laboratorio REF Ricerche, Paper no. 102, 1–10.
Berardi, et al. (2019a). Morosità e bonus idrico: due “facce” della stessa medaglia. Laboratorio REF Ricerche, Paper no. 122, 1–21.
Berardi, D., Signori, F., & Tallarigo, M. (2019b). La tariffa idrica si “rinnova”: più equa e più semplice. Laboratorio REF Ricerche, Paper no. 121, 1–15.
Braig, K. F. (2018). The European Court of Human Rights and the right to clean water and sanitation. Water Policy, 20(2), 282–307.
Briganti, A. (2012). Il diritto all’acqua. Tra tutela dei beni comuni e governo dei servizi pubblici. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
Brunner, N., et al. (2015). The human right to water in law and implementation. Laws, 2015(4), 413–471.
Bulto, T. S. (2011). The emergence of the human right to water in international human rights law: Invention of discovery? Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2011(12), 1–25.
Cahill, A. (2005). ‘The human right to water – A right of unique status’: The legal status and normative content of the right to water. The International Journal of Human Rights, 2005(9), 389–410.
Camerlengo, Q. (2017). L’acqua e i suoi giudici. In L. Violini & B. Randazzo (Eds.), Il diritto all’acqua. Atti del seminario di studio svoltosi a Milano il 26 novembre 2015 (pp. 35–92). Giuffrè: Milano.
Carrozza, C., & Fantini, E. (2013). Si scrive acqua… Attori, pratiche e discorsi nel movimento italiano per l’acqua bene comune. Turin: Accademia University Press.
Cauduro, A. (2017). La fornitura del quantitativo minimo vitale di acqua. Diritto amministrativo, 2017(4), 837–860.
Cavallo Perin, R. (2018). Proprietà pubblica e uso comune dei beni tra diritti di libertà e doveri di solidarietà. Diritto amministrativo, 26(4), 839–862.
Colacino, N. (2018). Obblighi internazionali e ordinamento costituzionale a dieci anni dalle sentenze gemelle: breve cronaca di un lungo assedio. In F. Giunchedi (Ed.), Rapporti tra fonti europee e dialogo tra corti (pp. 51–64). Pisa: Pisa University Press.
Coomans, F. (2007). Application of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in the framework of international organisations. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 2007(11), 359–390.
Craven, M. (2006). Some thoughts on the emergent right to water. In E. Riedel & P. Rothen (Eds.), The human right to water (pp. 37–47). Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Crismani, A. (2016). La protezione costituzionale del diritto all’acqua pubblica tra crisi finanziaria e diritti umani. L’art. 70.a della Costituzione slovena sul “Diritto all’acqua potabile”. Amministrazione in cammino, 30 December 2016, 1–23.
De Girolamo, A. (2013). I servizi pubblici locali. Dall’ideologia al pragmatismo. Roma: Donzelli.
De Lourdes Melo Zurita, M., et al. (2015). Reframing water: Contesting H2O within the European Union. Geoforum, 2015(75), 170–178.
De Martino, F. R. (2017). L’acqua come diritto fondamentale e la sua gestione pubblica. Munus, 2017(1), 163–190.
Della Giustina, C. (2020). Il diritto all’ambiente nella Costituzione italiana. AmbienteDiritto.it, 2020(1), 192–217.
Di Dio, F. (2008). Acqua, derivazioni e conflitti d’uso: per la prima volta un Tribunale riconosce che bere è un diritto primario rispetto alle concessioni per produrre energia elettrica. Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente, 2008(6), 1018–1028.
Fantini, E. (2014). Catholics in the making of the Italian water movement: A moral economy. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 7(1), 35–57.
Fantini, E. (2019). An introduction to the human right to water: Law, politics, and beyond. WIREs Water, 7(2), e1405. 1–8.
Forum italiano dei movimenti per l’acqua. (2019). Il costo della ri-pubblicizzazione del servizio idrico integrato: acqua bene comune universale diritto fondamentale. https://www.camera.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg18/attachments/upload_file_doc_acquisiti/pdfs/000/001/678/Dossier_costi_ripubblicizzazione_acqua_def_ultima_versione_definitiva_16.05.19_.pdf
Frosini, T. E. (2010a). Dare un diritto agli assetati. Analisi Giuridica dell’Economia, 2010(1), 29–37.
Frosini, T. E. (2010b). Il diritto costituzionale all’acqua. Rivista giuridica del Mezzogiorno, 24(3), 861–869.
Gleick, P. H. (1998). The human right to water. Water Policy, 1998(1), 457–503.
Guastini, R. (2011). Interpretare e argomentare. Milano: Giuffrè.
Iannello, C. (2012). Il diritto all’acqua. L’appartenenza collettiva della risorsa idrica. Napoli: La scuola di Pitagora editrice.
ISTAT. (2020). Le statistiche dell’ISTAT sull’acqua: anni 2018–2019. www.istat.it/it/files/2020/03/Le-statistiche-Istat-sull%E2%80%99acqua.pdf.
Kirschner, A. J. (2011). The human right to water and sanitation. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 2011(15), 445–487.
Kuijer, M. (2020). The challenging relationship between the European convention on human rights and the EU legal order: Consequences of a delayed accession. The International Journal of Human Rights, 2020(24), 998–1010.
Langford, M. (2017). Privatization and the right to water. In M. Langford & A. F. S. Russell (Eds.), The human right to water: Theory, practice and prospects (pp. 463–502). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langford, M., & Russell, A. F. S. (2017). Introduction: The right to water in context. In M. Langford & A. F. S. Russell (Eds.), The human right to water: Theory, practice and prospects (pp. 1–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Louvin, R. (2018). Aqua aequa. Dispositivi giuridici, partecipazione e giustizia per l’elemento idrico. Torino: Giappichelli.
Mangiameli, S. (2006). Il contributo dell'esperienza costituzionale italiana alla dommatica europea della tutela dei diritti fondamentali. In A. Pace (Ed.), Corte costituzionale e processo costituzionale nell’esperienza della rivista “Giurisprudenza costituzionale” per il cinquantesimo anniversario (pp. 471–529). Milano: Giuffrè.
McCaffrey, S. C. (1992). A human right to water: Domestic and international implications. The Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 1992–1993(1), 1–24.
McCaffrey, S. C. (2005). The human right to water. In E. Brown Weiss, L. Boisson de Chazournes, & N. Bernasconi-Osterwalder (Eds.), Fresh water and international economic law (pp. 93–115). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCaffrey, S. C. (2016). The human right to water: A false promise? The University of the Pacific Law Review, 2016(47), 221–232.
Midiri, F. (2017). I servizi pubblici locali privi di interesse economico fra legislatore nazionale e giurisprudenza europea. Federalismi.it, Paper no. 6/2007, 1–17.
Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche sociali. (2019). Il nuovo ISEE: Rapporto di monitoraggio 2017. Quaderni della ricerca sociale n. 44. https://welforum.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/quaderno-della-ricerca-sociale-44-Rapporto-ISEE-2017.pdf
Ndeunyema, N. (2020). Unmuddying the waters: Evaluating the legal basis of the human right to water under treaty law, customary international law, and the general principles of law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 2020(41), 455–490.
Nicotra, F. (2016). Un “diritto nuovo”: il diritto all’acqua. Federalismi.it, Paper no. 14/2016, 1–24.
Scheidleder, A., & Visser, P. (2012). Task 3c – Summary note on drinking water safeguard zones. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/pdf/summary_note_drinking_water_protected_areas.pdf
Sepúlveda, M. (2006). Obligations of “international assistance and cooperation” in an optional protocol to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 2006(24), 271–303.
Sileoni, S. (2016). L’acqua: una risorsa fondamentale, quale diritto? Rivista AIC, 2016(3), 1–26.
Sparacino, E. (2017). La Corte costituzionale e l’autonomia siciliana in materia di regolazione del servizio idrico. Forum di Quaderni Costituzionali, Rassegna n. 9/2017, 1–8.
Staiano, S. (2011). Note sul diritto fondamentale all’acqua. Proprietà del bene, gestione del servizio, ideologie della privatizzazione. Federalismi.it, Paper no. 5/2011, 1–25.
Sultana, F., & Loftus, A. (2015). The human right to water: Critiques and condition of possibility. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water, 2015(2), 97–105.
Toresini, C. (2019). Il diritto all’acqua nelle Regioni: Water, water, every where, nor any drop to drink. AmbienteDiritto.it, 2019(1), 67–91.
Urbinati, U. (2015). Il diritto all’acqua e all’accesso ai servizi igienici è riconosciuto in modo incompleto nel diritto italiano come anche nel diritto internazionale e nel diritto europeo. Diritto comunitario e degli scambi internazionali, 2015(3–4), 567–596.
Van den Berge, J., Boelens, R., & Vos, J. (2020). How the European citizens’ initiative ‘water and sanitation is a human right!’ changed EU discourse on water services provision. Utrecht Law Review, 2020(16), 48–59.
Winkler, I. (2019). The human right to water. In S. C. McCaffrey, C. Leb, & R. T. Denoon (Eds.), Research handbook on international water law (pp. 242–254). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Turrini, P., Pertile, M. (2021). The Human Right to Water in Italy’s Foreign Policy and Domestic Law. In: Turrini, P., Massarutto, A., Pertile, M., de Carli, A. (eds) Water Law, Policy and Economics in Italy . Global Issues in Water Policy, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69075-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69075-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69074-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69075-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)