GPDP & ITA Airways

REPORT brought to light an extremely serious fact: a raid at ITA Airways offices related to executive-class flight passes issued to members of the Italian Data Protection Authority (GPDP), precisely during the period in which the same Authority was reviewing a case involving the company.

If confirmed, these facts raise a fundamental issue of conflict of interest, institutional independence, and decision-making credibility.

The news inevitably leads me to reflect on how my own case before the GPDP was handled.

Despite robust documentation, a detailed chronology of the facts, and consistent evidence of the continued publication, on ENI’s website, of the official document “Questions and Answers Before the 2017 Shareholders’ Meeting”, which still affects my honor, reputation, and professional trajectory, the merits of my complaint were never effectively examined.

The result was the continued publication, without any substantive assessment, of a corporate document whose public availability has been causing ongoing damage for years.

When news like this emerges - directly involving the very Authority entrusted with protecting fundamental rights related to privacy, reputation, and data accuracy - the reflection becomes unavoidable:

📌 how were cases really analyzed?

In my case, that question remains unanswered.

And today it takes on even greater relevance in the public debate on transparency, accountability, and institutional trust.

✅ Learn more:

1️⃣ GPDP Decision 

2️⃣ Memorial (1999–2025)

3️⃣ Documented Chronology of Facts

Today is April Fool’s Day in Italy

For me, it also marks 25 years of the false narrative built around the Flinto Case.

Some lies do not disappear with time.

They become institutional.


🛑 Learn more about my history with the Italian oil giant Eni:

✅ 1) Memorial (1999–2025); 

✅ 2) Chronology of facts supported by documentary evidence.

This is Eni's Way!

There is something deeply troubling when a pattern starts to repeat itself.

In my case, this is not an isolated episode. It is about three formal complaints, at different points in time - 2015, 2020, and 2025 - all centered on the same issue: retaliation following my reporting of irregularities within Eni.

And what happened in all of them?

👉 Dismissal.

👉 No assessment on the merits.

👉 Institutional silence.

Time does not matter.

The strength of evidence does not matter.

The evolution of facts does not matter.

The pattern repeats itself.

In 2025, this scenario becomes even more serious.

My complaint not only reiterated a history of retaliation - it was supported by:

✔️ documentation consolidated over more than two decades;

✔️ a detailed chronological reconstruction of events;

✔️ evidence already acknowledged in other contexts.

And yet, the outcome was the same: no substantive analysis.

But there is more.

At the same time, a criminal complaint filed by Eni against me was accepted - under circumstances that deviate from standard procedural norms, including service through an international rogatory letter whose legality is, at the very least, questionable.

👉 In other words:

✔️ retaliation complaints are dismissed without analysis;

✔️ while actions against the whistleblower move forward.

This is not just imbalance.

👉 This raises a structural issue.

When an authority such as ANAC (Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione) repeatedly dismisses complaints on the same grounds - always without examining the merits - we are no longer dealing with isolated technical decisions.

We are facing an institutional pattern of non-engagement.

This is precisely the type of dynamic that led journalists like Andrea Greco (La Repubblica) and Giuseppe Oddo to describe, back in 2015, in the book “Eni, The Parallel State”, the existence of a system of power operating beyond formal control mechanisms.

My story with the company is documented in that work.

And in light of today’s facts, the question becomes unavoidable:

👉 to what extent does this “parallel state” continue to operate - not only within corporations, but also in how institutions decide what to investigate… and what not to investigate?

Because when complaints are systematically ignored, and when the merits are never examined, the issue ceases to be individual.

👉 It becomes institutional.