Eni & GPDP

Today, Autorità Garante per la protezione dei dati personali published a statement warning the media about the disclosure of names in an investigation involving “luxury escorts” in Milan.

The message is clear:

🛑 even when there is public interest, the dissemination of personal data must respect dignity, reputation, and the principle of essentiality of information.

In other words, not everything that can be disclosed should be disclosed.
Especially when it concerns individuals who are not even formally under investigation.

Fair enough!

Now, an inevitable question:

📌 Where was this same level of rigor when an official corporate document by Eni - “Questions and Answers before the 2017 Shareholders’ Meeting” - was published containing information that directly affects my honor, my reputation, and my entire professional trajectory?

📌 Where was the principle of “essentiality” when my name was publicly associated with a narrative I have been contesting for years, based on robust documentation?

📌 Where was the concern for the continuous damage caused by the ongoing online availability of that content?

Because in my case, we are not talking about a press report.

We are talking about an institutional document, kept online for years, with permanent and concrete effects on a person’s life.

The Authority itself now states that:

🛑 the dissemination of personal data must be limited to what is strictly indispensable.

So the question remains - and it is a technical one, not an emotional one:

📌 Was it really indispensable to expose my name in that way?

Or are we facing a selective application of principles that should be universal?
In a rule-of-law system, coherence is not a detail.

It is what separates real protection of rights from their merely circumstantial application.

✅ Learn more about the Flinto Case:

1️⃣ Memorial (1999–2025);

2️⃣ Chronology of facts supported by documentary evidence.