ENI & GPDP

Today I make public a decision that should never have been taken.

After 24 years fighting to defend my name, my honor, and my professional reputation, I submitted a comprehensive complaint to Autorità Garante per la protezione dei dati personali against Eni supported by robust documentary evidence, a detailed timeline, successive submissions, new facts, and even an autonomous complaint against the company’s Data Protection Officer (DPO).

Since 2017, Eni has published an institutional document containing false information regarding the reasons for my dismissal from AGIP Brazil in 2001 — information that does not appear in the official minutes of the shareholders’ meeting and that remains publicly available, causing ongoing damage to my honor and professional life.

Despite all this, Autorità Garante per la protezione dei dati personali decided to close the procedure without opening an investigation, without examining the merits of the case and without verifying the accuracy of the contested data.

This decision is not merely legally weak.

It is institutionally grave.

The Authority chose not to apply fundamental principles of the GDPR, including:
✔️ the accuracy of personal data (Article 5(1)(d));
✔️ the right to rectification (Article 16);
✔️ the accountability of the controller (Article 24);
✔️ and the duty of transparency toward the data subject (Article 12).

In practice, the Authority shielded Italy’s largest company from any form of investigation.

It is impossible to ignore the broader context:

Eni is Italy’s largest company and the Italian State is its controlling shareholder.

When a Data Protection Authority decides not to investigate a case of this magnitude, involving a state-owned or politically sensitive company, one question becomes unavoidable:

📌 Who is being protected: the citizen or power?

In response to this decision, I will pursue all available avenues:
✔️ judicial, before the Tribunal of Rome (Article 78 GDPR);
✔️ European institutional, before the European Commission;
✔️ and public and media channels, because silence only benefits those who violate the law.

This fight has never been only about data.

🛑 It has always been — and continues to be — about truth, dignity, justice, and ethics.

Twenty-four years is far too long. But it is not long enough to silence me.

✅ Learn more:

1) Complaint against Eni filed with Autorità Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (GPDP) in December 2024:

2) Decision of the GPDP issued in December 2025 (Italian version)

Eni's Boardwashing

 

I want to share a reflection that has accompanied me for more than 24 long and painful years:

📌 What does Corporate Governance really mean when the very Board of Directors does not uphold what it claims to defend?

Eni, one of the largest energy companies in the world, has the Italian Government as its controlling shareholder, appointing the CEO, the Chairman, and the majority of the so-called “independent directors”.

Therefore, more than an ordinary corporation, Eni should be a global model of integrity and respect for its own Code of Ethics. But here is the question that has remained unanswered since 2001:

📌 Why have none of Eni’s five Board compositions (2002, 2009, 2014, 2020, and 2023) taken any concrete action regarding my reports on the Flinto Case?

My unfair dismissal in 2001 - demonstrably recognized as retaliation - violated both my rights and the spirit of Eni’s "Charter of Values", which claimed to protect those who act ethically. Which claimed to protect whistleblowers.

And since then, what have I encountered?
Silence.
Self-serving narratives.
Frustration in every attempt at dialogue.
Systematic retaliation, including three SLAPP lawsuits filed against me in Rome - in 2010, 2017, and 2022.

And the Board?
Isn’t it the “personification” of Corporate Governance?
Isn’t it the “Guardian of Ethics”?
Shouldn’t the Board be the first to guarantee integrity and protection for whistleblowers?

No action.
No real investigation.
No accountability.

And this leads us to the central point:

✅ “When a Board exists but refuses to confront - openly and courageously - cases like mine, that is not governance. It is theatre".

In truth, it is BOARDWASHING: a deceptive appearance of oversight created to preserve reputation while preventing ethics from producing real consequences.

And now, in 2025, something even more serious has become evident:

📌 After more than two decades, Eni finally accepted my complaint - not because it recognized the facts, but merely to comply with the requirements of ISO 37301:2021.

The result?
A fake investigation, superficial and devoid of any analysis of the evidence, concluded with an evasive, standardized response — a template designed to close complaints without admitting anything.

An attempt to:
✔ simulate compliance
✔ fulfill an ISO checklist
✔ avoid accountability
✔ sustain a narrative already dismantled by irrefutable facts and evidence
Corporate Governance is not aesthetics, not slides, not an annual report.

Governance is the courage to act when ethics demand action.
It is independence.
It is truth.
It is accountability.

And until this exists - in any country, any market, any company - we will continue watching the same play. Only with different actors.

BOARDWASHING is global.

And the Flinto Case is one more example - but one that has persisted for 24 years.

And as long as it persists, I will continue speaking about it.

🛑 Learn more:

1) Formal Complaint to Eni’s Chief Compliance Officer (August 25, 2025);

2) Memorial of Facts;

3) Chronology of Events (2001 to 2025);

4) Eni's Whistleblowing Policy

5) Eni’s Evasive Response to My Whistleblowing Complaint (November 21, 2025)