ANAC: New Whistleblowing Report

Today, I formally filed a new whistleblowing report with ANAC – the Italian National Anti-Corruption Authority, under Legislative Decree nº 24/2023, which implements the "EU Whistleblower Protection Directive" (EU 2019/1937).

The new fact underlying this filing is particularly serious.

In August 2025, for the first time in nearly 25 years, Eni formally accepted an internal whistleblowing report submitted by me.

However, despite that formal acceptance, no substantive follow-up ever took place.

The company limited itself to a template-style response, without demonstrating any real investigation, without effective due diligence of the reported facts and, most importantly, without providing the investigation report, even after a formal request submitted to the DPO.

This is the core issue.

A whistleblowing report that is formally accepted but never effectively investigated may represent not only a procedural failure, but also a potential breach of the follow-up, transparency, and whistleblower protection duties established under both Italian and European law.

This was precisely the matter formally brought today before ANAC.

The filing also exposes the broader context:

✔️ the continued public availability, on Eni’s website, of the official “Questions and Answers before the 2017 Shareholders’ Meeting” document, containing false and harmful information;

✔️ the reputational and financial damages accumulated over the years;

✔️ and the history of three lawsuits (SLAPP) brought by the company against me (2010, 2017 and 2022), an element that further reinforces concerns regarding retaliation risk.

The formal protocol issued by ANAC represents, in my view, an important step not only in my personal case, but in the broader debate on:

📌 effectiveness of whistleblowing channels

📌 corporate accountability

📌 real whistleblower protection

📌 consistency between compliance certifications and actual corporate conduct

When a whistleblowing report is formally accepted, yet there is no evidence of a real investigation, the inevitable question becomes:

🛑 does the channel exist to uncover the truth, or merely to satisfy formal requirements?

We move forward.


✅ Learn more by accessing the Flinto Case:

1️⃣ Memorial (1999–2025);

2️⃣ Chronology of facts supported by documentary evidence.

Eni & ISO 37301:2021

In January 2024, while celebrating Eni’s ISO 37301:2021 Compliance Management System certification, Luca Franceschini - Chief Compliance Officer and Secretary of the Board Of Directors - stated:

‼️ “The certification represents further recognition of Eni’s commitment to promoting and fostering a culture of compliance, guiding corporate conduct and management to respect the values of integrity, fairness, transparency, and sustainability”.

He went even further:

‼️ “...leading to the establishment of an integrated and independent compliance function, focused exclusively on ethical matters, under the direct responsibility of the CEO”.

The statement is powerful.

The narrative is impeccable.

But the reality of my case tells a very different story.

In August 2025, when Eni accepted my formal whistleblowing report for the first time, the minimum expected from an internationally certified compliance system would have been a serious, independent, and document-driven due diligence process.

That did not happen.

There was no investigative depth consistent with the company’s public integrity narrative, nor the level of diligence required for a case involving:

✔️ a formal ethics complaint

✔️ prolonged reputational destruction

✔️ the maintenance of a false corporate narrative

✔️ damages accumulated over decades

✔️ the continued public availability of a harmful official document

The gap between public compliance rhetoric and the actual handling of sensitive reports is precisely where the credibility of internal systems is truly tested.

📌 Certifications matter.

But their real legitimacy is measured when a company is called upon to investigate, with independence and courage, difficult cases within its own power structure.

In my case, this was the test the system failed to pass.


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

1️⃣ Memorial (1999–2025);

2️⃣ Chronology of facts supported by documentary evidence.

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.