Reasons not to dramatize the Court's intervention on the Bridge

On the same topic:

Nothing new for the Strait Bridge . Neither the Court of Auditors' initial comments on CIPESS's approval of the final project and the economic-financial plan, nor the reaction of Infrastructure Minister Matteo Salvini, are surprising, in a completely tentative phase without formal deliberations. The Court states that it needs to obtain "clarifications and information," but would have said so anyway. In a document to the Prime Minister's Office, it makes some observations: "The burden of providing reasons has not been fully fulfilled, as there is a lack of a detailed assessment of the preliminary investigation findings to support the decisions made by CIPESS, including at crucial points in the procedural process."

Harsh words, certainly, but the bottom line is that the CIPESS resolution "appears more like a review of the activities carried out by the various institutional actors in the process than a consideration of the findings of those activities, both factually and legally." Salvini responds that "all the clarifications and additions requested by the Court of Auditors are part of the normal dialogue between institutions and will be provided within the expected timeframe, especially for such a significant project. The Strait of Messina Bridge is not under discussion, and the relevant offices are already at work." It is too early to say how the Court's findings will pan out. What is clear is that the findings of a lack of "consideration" and the downgrading of the CIPESS resolution to a "mere review" are not at all surprising; indeed, they appear to correspond with the outcome desired by Parliament. Therefore, ultimately, they will prove of little relevance to the Court's judgment, which cannot assess a political and legislative parachute. Why else would two decrees have been approved, one at the start of the procedure (Legislative Decree 35/2023) and one shortly before the Cipess resolution (Legislative Decree 73/2025), to preemptively legitimize the project to be chosen and the procedures to be adopted to restart the Bridge?

Acts, facts, and "crucial junctures in the procedural process," which would have required a thorough administrative assessment or had even been the subject of litigation over the previous procedure and the previous draft, have been brought back to life with a stroke of the legislative wand. Parliament, by legitimizing them a priori, has greatly reduced—if not completely eliminated—the responsibilities of those who should have approved those procedures and the scope of the Court's intervention. The Court will obviously assert its powers, at least over what remains of those responsibilities after parliamentary intervention.

More on these topics: