Now, it was the turn of the Italian Court of Cassation to confirm the sentence of 1st and 2nd Instance, that is, the lawsuit (for slander and defamation) against me was considered “without foundation”, in addition to the company not having proven the criteria for the claim for compensation of 15 million euros!
In fact, the conduct of the Italian oil giant to my disadvantage is nothing more than a “SLAAP suit”.
Read the COURT RULING.
Read more about SLAAP SUIT.
What could lead a senior communications executive to “block” a connection on LinkedIn?
I always imagined that external communication professionals followed the “best practices” in the “Corporate Communication Manual” in the relationship with the company's Stakeholders.
On the other hand, I can understand Mrs. Erika Mandraffino’s reasons... Well, she doesn't want to face the unjustifiable conduct of the Italian oil giant that, in my case, is totally contrary to corporate commitments (including the principles enshrined in Eni's Code of Ethics) and, above all, the international commitments that the company says it “accepts” and “follows”: OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the 10 Principles of the Global Compact.
In fact, in my case, Eni left aside what all Stakeholders expect from a company: “walk the talk”.
Note that ENI’s arguments, sent to NCP Brazil in the “confidential documents” dated March 2021, September 2021, and April 2022, in addition to distorting and manipulating the truth of the facts, the arguments also had something in common: the company continues to unjustly attack my honor and reputation.
During all these years, especially the latest events in this story, which took place in 2020, 2021, and 2022, including ENI's participation in this Specific Instance, the corporate strategy to conduct the "Flinto case" continues to be practiced: a systemic imposition of instrumentally engineered retaliation and victimization with the sole objective of the company exempting itself from its own responsibility.
If that were not ENI's strategy, the company wouldn't mind carrying out a "due diligence" on my case, as well as analyzing the facts and all the documents presented by me in the light of its own commitments and the international commitments accepted and followed by the company.
Now, what is ENI's fear of following the guidelines and recommendations of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct?
Note that, in ENI's correspondence, dated March 2021, sent to PCN Brazil, the company states in a loud and clear voice: What could or should Eni have done that has not already been done?
The answer is more than evident: the company needs to carry out a “due diligence” on my case in the light of the “chronology of the facts” (Doc. 01) and the “supporting documentation” that were sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” that took place in these two decades!
If ENI were so confident regarding its arguments presented in this Specific Instance to my disadvantage, the company would be the first to want to present to the NCP Brazil the “result” of “closer inspection” into my case to make “full proof” of what ENI said in the “2nd and 3rd versions” about my dismissal when replicating and sharing information from AGIP Brazil without any documentary proofs.
Also note that the truth presented and proven in the “chronology of facts” was not only sufficiently capable of “reconstructing the events” involving all these years of ethical struggle with ENI, but it also compromises the company. That is why the Italian oil giant continues distorting and manipulating the truth of the facts, in addition to unjustifiably refusing to carry out a “due diligence” on my case.
Now, what is ENI's fear in accepting the truth of the facts presented by me? It's also embarrassing for the company not wanting to see that the facts presented by me were absolutely proven, thus, turning my arguments into indisputable, uncontroversial, irrefutable, and undeniable facts.
ENI may not even come out publicly, let alone apologize for the mistakes to my disfavor, but the truth about the “Flinto case” lies within the company itself: in the internal audit department's whistleblower files, in all executives' drawers. who led this case and on the agendas of the Board of Directors' meetings!
Therefore, much more than pleading an "admission of legal liabity" as stated by ENI, the "reparation" for all the damage I suffered over all these years is a matter of dignity, honor, and justice. That's because, even with the best practices, a company can cause or contribute to causing negative and harmful consequences that it did not foresee or was unable to avoid. This situation is obviously not a demerit for any company. Quite the opposite! It is cases like mine that make a company improve its corporate governance processes even more.
I don't know if ENI has already realized that the company is a spectator of itself. The Italian oil giant is observant of its own conduct. It would be much more admirable if ENI were delighted with itself because of always doing what is right, as enshrined in its Code of Ethics. By doing that, the company would manage to not only be delighted with itself, but ENI would also delight its Stakeholders.
I confess that I still hope to be surprised and delighted by ENI's conduct regarding the “Flinto case”.
Eni already knows that I am tireless and unstoppable! Even so, I must let the record show that I will never give up trying to rescue and restore my name, my honor, and my reputation that, over these almost 22 years, has been unfairly denigrated by Italian oil giant, despite the company being fully aware that its actions and omissions continue to cause me numerous damages.
Therefore, as long as I am healthy, I will continue to fight with all the legal instruments at my disposal. If needed, my children, my legitimate heirs - who, since childhood, have followed every chapter of my story with #Eni and, therefore, have also been affected - will continue to fight for me!
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?”.
It is very important for the global market to note that, ENI's conduct is not an isolated case. Quite the opposite! The facts below - which are very similar to my case presented in this web site - demonstrate that ENI has "numerous" and "serious" problems involving the "Whistleblowing Process":
a) YEAR 2013
In 2013, a “blog” maintained by a university professor and environmental activist hosted in an Italian newspaper, told the story of Mr. Gianni Franzoni, an oil tanker captain for the company SAIPEM, a company controlled by ENI.
The report, entitled “In the open sea, the eyes do not see and the heart does not hurt” (Doc. 01), says that, in 2007, Mr. Franzoni became aware of numerous technical and certification irregularities. Their findings indicated that “SAIPEM was carrying out naval operations, oil drilling, and industrial work in deep waters without adequate personnel, in violation of issued certifications or even without the necessary certificates as required by Italian law and international regulations. All this, so as not to have to restructure and update its infrastructure, putting workers and the environment at risk”.
The blogger also says that: “Instead of the company thanking the captain for his work, for his ethical courage, and for his love of the sea, he was the first to be fired, in 2012. Mr. Franzoni did everything he had to do. First, he presented his complaint within SAIPEM, in accordance with the Code of Ethics. Then he wrote to the 'Ethics Commission' — those who should verify the allegations through a 'due diligence' (internal audit). And, after being fired, the commander wrote an 'open letter' to the CEO of ENI (Mr. Paolo Scaroni), in 2013 (Doc. 02). As ENI did nothing, he filed a 'criminal complaint' to the Italian Public Ministry (Doc. 03)”.
In 2014, Mr. Franzoni made contact with me. But what could I do to help him, other than publish his story with ENI on my social media?
b) YEAR 2016:
An Italian journalist, when breaking the news of the dismissal of this other employee of ENI, was quite blunt in naming his article, in 2016: “Eni, games and porn movies in the control room. Dismissed for having denounced the truth” (Doc. 04).
c) ANO 2017:
Contrary to what ENI is reporting to the global market, the “audit” carried out by RINA Services in 2017 had nothing to do with my specific case.
The truth is that, in 2017, as CEO of the Brazilian Business Ethics Institute, I received two “anonymous whistleblowing” involving fraud and acts of corruption in the Americas (Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, and the United States) carried out by managers and executives of ENI and with the involvement of top people, located at ENI’s headquarters in Rome.
The aforementioned anonymous whistleblowing reached my hands at the same time. But one of them was posted in the US Post Office (Doc. 05) and the other one in the Italian Post Office (Doc. 06).
Now, what are the reasons for ENI's Stakeholders to send “complaints” to me?
Now, why were these complaints not sent to the “Whistleblowing Channel” of ENI itself?
Now, why were these serious complaints involving executives from ENI’s top management not sent directly to the “Board of Directors”?
Could the answer be related to the suspicion of ENI's Stakeholders in the "whistleblowing process" that does not have sufficient credibility and is not a credible procedure? Or would the answer lie in the fact that ENI’s employees are being fired after filing a whistleblowing?
As soon as I received these anonymous reports, I forwarded them both to ENI’s internal channels and to RINA Services, a multinational company that certifies ISO standards, with 160 years of experience in a wide range of sectors, operating in 70 countries, with 200 offices and more than 4,000 professionals, but headquartered in Italy (!?).
In 2022, due to documents attached to the second lawsuit filed by ENI against me, I learned that, in May and June 2017, RINA Services carried out a “complex audit” of ENI (is that right?) about the “anti-bribery management system” of the ISO 37001 standard. After the work, an “internal audit report” was prepared (Doc. 07).
Note that a “statement” (Doc. 08) was prepared by RINA Services - four years after such internal audit - on June 04, 2021, being stated that: “[...] It requested detailed information regarding the management of the aforementioned situations and planned an additional audit to assess the correct management of the report according to the requirements, the reference standards and in order to be able to give a correct answer to the complainant, Mr. Douglas Linares Flinto”.
However, I never received any kind of response, neither from ENI nor RINA Services. Why not?
