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