Strait Bridge, Court of Auditors: European environmental and procurement rules violated

In four points contained in the deliberation of the Central Section on the control of legitimacy on the acts of the government, the Court of Auditors lines up the critical points that on 29 October led to the refusal to register the Cipess resolution on which the procedure for the Ponte sullo Stretto bridge is based. A rejection that affects the act on several fronts: from the violation of the Habitats Directive to the European regulations on procurement, passing through the exclusion of the Transport Regulatory Authority and other aspects that are limping along in the procedure to reactivate the project.

The meeting of 29 October, with the observations filed on 27 November, brings to a close a path marked by three rounds of clarifications, a tight correspondence with Brussels and the sending, by the Dipe and the ministries, of documentation that the Court defines as incomplete in several points and lacking the necessary technical prerequisites. But thethe Ministry of Infrastructure "takes note of the Court of Auditors' motivations" and makes it known in a note that "technicians and jurists are already at work 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, for its part, said that the reasons "will be the subject of careful examination by the government, in particular by the administrations involved, which have been committed from the outset to verifying the aspects that are still in doubt". According to Palazzo Chigi, these are 'profiles with ample room for clarification before the Court itself, in a discussion that is intended to be constructive and aimed at guaranteeing Italy a strategic infrastructure that has been awaited for decades'.

But let's return to the Court's observations that clarify where the procedure for restarting the work has jammed. The first critical front concerns the Iropi procedure, the 'imperative reasons of overriding public interest' that made it possible to overcome the negative assessment of the Via-Vas. For 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. The reasons of protection of public health and safety, which would have made it possible not to ask the European Commission for a formal opinion, are also described as 'lacking adequate and circumstantial assessments'.

The national guidelines for the Vinca, the environmental impact assessment, require that, in the case of a negative opinion, a check must be made to see if there are no alternatives that could reduce the impacts on Natura 2000 sites. For the Court, this step is not performed. The College recalls that the assessment of alternatives is an essential prerequisite and that the substantive criteria imposed by the Habitats Directive "are not met". The European Commission, moreover, asked for clarification on impacts, alternatives and compensatory measures in its note of 15 September. Mase's reply, which arrived on 15 October, reproduced the Via 2024 and 2025 opinions 'without adding any further information'.