At the 2017 AGM, Eni stated that conclusions regarding the Flinto Case had been recorded by the Collegio Sindacale in Eni’s 2002 Annual Report.
I went looking for them.
The information cited by Eni was not there.
But 2017 had another important chapter in this story.
The first lawsuit filed by Eni against me and the Brazilian Institute of Business Ethics had already been decided at first instance.
In September 2014, the Court of Rome found the action unfounded.
Eni appealed.
While the appeal was pending, I continued publishing documents and information about the Flinto Case on social media and Eni’s Way.
Then, in September 2017, came:
πΉ a second lawsuit against me.
This time, there was an important difference.
Alongside Eni, two of its executives took part in the action:
π Marco Petracchini and Massimo Mantovani.
There is important context.
Before the lawsuit, I had filed complaints involving these executives with international professional bodies related, respectively, to audit and legal functions.
The new action again challenged my publications about the Flinto Case, alleging they were defamatory and slanderous.
There was another significant detail.
In the first lawsuit, Eni had sought €15 million in damages.
The Court of Rome found the action unfounded.
In the second lawsuit, the plaintiffs did not specify the amount of damages, leaving any quantification to the Court.
But perhaps the most revealing documentary aspect lies in the material brought into the proceedings.
Eni’s Way publications were used in the lawsuit.
In other words, what I published to make my version of events and related documents public became part of the judicial action brought against me.
Consider the sequence:
πΉ 2014: Eni’s first lawsuit is found unfounded by the Court of Rome.
πΉ 2017: ten questions about the Flinto Case reach the AGM.
πΉ 2017: Eni presents a new version of my dismissal and attributes its basis to the 2002 Annual Report.
πΉ September 2017: a second lawsuit is initiated against me.
I am not asking anyone to accept my interpretation.
I am asking people to examine the documents and the dates.
And one question will remain relevant throughout the next episodes:
π when someone continues reporting and publishing information about what they consider wrongdoing, where does a company’s legitimate right to defend itself end - and where might retaliation against a whistleblower begin?
The second lawsuit would continue through the Italian courts.
Its consequences would take years to unfold.
Next week, we will continue this chronology.
❎ Learn more:
1️⃣ Second lawsuit - case documentation
2️⃣ Memorial (1999–2025)
3️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events