In four points contained in the central section’s resolution on the legitimacy control of government acts, the Court of Auditors lists the critical points which on 28 October led to the refusal to register the Cipess resolution on which the process for the Strait Bridge is based. A failure that affects the act on several fronts: from the violation of the Habitats Directive to the European rules on procurement, passing through the exclusion of the Transport Regulatory Authority and other aspects that are limping in the procedure for reactivating the project.
Three rounds of clarifications
Table of Contents
The meeting of 29 October, with the observations filed on 27 November, closes a process marked by three rounds of clarifications, intense correspondence with Brussels and the sending, by the Dipe and the ministries, of documentation that the Court defines as incomplete in several places and lacking the necessary technical prerequisites. But iMeanwhile, the Ministry of Infrastructure “takes note of the reasons given by the Court of Auditors” and states in a note that “technicians and jurists are already working to overcome all the findings and finally give Italy a bridge that is unique in the world in terms of safety, sustainability, modernity and usefulness”.
Palazzo Chigi: wide margin for clarification on the Bridge
Palazzo Chigi for its part makes it known that the reasons “will be the subject of careful investigation by the Government, in particular by the administrations involved, who were immediately committed to verifying the aspects that are still doubtful”. According to Palazzo Chigi, these are «profiles with a wide margin for clarification before the Court itself, in a discussion that intends to be constructive and aimed at guaranteeing Italy a strategic infrastructure that has been awaited for decades».
At the Iropi procedure
But let’s go back to the Court’s observations which clarify where the procedure for restarting the work got stuck. The first critical issue concerns the Iropi procedure, the “imperative reasons of significant public interest” which allowed the negative evaluation of the Via-Vas to be overcome. According to the judges, that procedure was conducted without the necessary investigative support. The Court contests that the “assumptions relating to the various “reasons of public interest” are not validated by technical bodies” and are not supported by adequate documentation. Even the reasons for protecting public health and safety, which would have allowed us not to ask for the formal opinion of the European Commission, are defined as “lacking adequate and detailed evaluations”.
Alternatives never examined
The national guidelines for Vinca, the environmental impact assessment, require that, in the event of a negative opinion, the absence of alternatives capable of reducing the impacts on Natura 2000 sites should be verified. According to the Court, this step has not been carried out. The College recalls that the evaluation of alternatives is an essential prerequisite and that the substantial criteria imposed by the Habitats Directive “are not satisfied”. Furthermore, in the note dated 15 September, the European Commission asked for clarifications on impacts, alternatives and compensatory measures. Mase’s response, which arrived on 15 October, reproduced the Via 2024 and 2025 opinions “without adding any further information”.
