Clarifications by Eni to the Stakeholders

The ENI's Stakeholders, including the company's shareholders, need to seek clarification from the Italian oil giant, as the “chronology of the facts” (Doc. 01) - about my story with Eni presented on Eni's Way and ENIFLIX in all their details websites - through abundant, rich, and robust "supporting documentation" that, undeniably, were sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” (a total of 48 events) involving the “actions” and “omissions” of ENI’s Brazilian subsidiary and of ENI itself due to my “unfair” dismissal, which indisputably was in “retaliation”; and the lack of "whistleblower protection" (as determined by ENI’s Code of Ethics) as well as ENI’s strategy to conduct the "Flinto case", which was also unquestionably used in these two decades: "systemic imposition of retaliation with attacks on my honor and reputation, and instrumentally engineered victimization”.

Through the affirmation in the previous paragraph, ENI needs to present to the company's shareholders a justification for the following question: "If the facts and the dozens of supporting documents presented by me were not sufficiently capable of "reconstructing the events", what then would be the reasons for two renowned Italian journalists to publish my story with ENI in an 'investigative book' (Eni: The Parallel State) which, in a few months, became a bestseller in Italy, and another journalist, a 'critical shareholder' of ENI, to take my case to be discussed in the course of four different shareholders' meetings?”.

Therefore, with the chronological presentation of facts that are fully proven and that are indisputably capable of convincing anyone, ENI needs to answer to the company's shareholders a very pertinent question: "What would be the result of a "due diligence" conducted by the Internal Audit Department of ENI, if an ‘in-depth investigation’ was carried out on everything that was presented (and proven) in this my whistleblowing?”.