Court Blocks Messina Bridge Over Legal and Environmental Violations 

A legal and accounting obstacle, deemed “unlawful” by the judiciary, is weighing on the Messina Strait Bridge project. In the reasoning published today, the Italian Court of Auditors formally rejected the CIPESS resolution on the mega-infrastructure, highlighting a deep divide between the judges' findings and the arguments of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (MIT). The Court criticized not only violations of fundamental laws but also the insufficiency and inconsistency of the ministry's responses.

Environmental Law Ignored: The Habitat Directive

The main reason for the rejection lies in the clear violation of the EU Habitats Directive (1992), which regulates the “conservation of natural and semi-natural habitats and wild flora and fauna.” According to the Court of Auditors, the construction of the single-span bridge violates these principles.

The Court emphasized that exceptions to this complex regulation are allowed only for “reasons of human health protection,” which are not applicable to this project. When asked for clarification, the MIT focused instead on the economic benefits of increased accessibility — arguments that the judges found “irrelevant to the derogation procedure.”

The IROPI document (sent by MIT) was dismissed as “extremely brief and axiomatic.” It merely stated: “Given the overriding reasons of safety and economic development, only the single-span Strait Bridge meets the needs while minimizing environmental impact.” The judiciary deemed these claims as “unsupported assertions,” insufficient to justify non-compliance with the law. The supposed “public interest” motivations were neither validated by technical bodies nor backed by documentation.

Concerns Over Procurement and Financial Sustainability

In addition to environmental concerns, the Court raised serious issues regarding transparency and financial sustainability.

On procurement, the Court censured the CIPESS resolution for merely acknowledging the total cost of the project without addressing the procedure for updating these costs or ensuring compliance with Article 72 of the EU Procurement Directive. In essence, the principle of “transparency and competition” — crucial after changes to the original project — was ignored.

As for economic sustainability, the Court found the toll pricing plan to be “lacking and contradictory.” The long-term management of the bridge remains uncertain, heavily dependent on the “unclear definition of construction costs,” which are only partially estimated and omit some expenses.

Political Reactions: “Experts at Work” vs. Opposition Backlash

While the Court of Auditors resolved to “reject the approval and subsequent registration of the measure,” political institutions sought to reassure the public.

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement promising “ample room for clarification with the Court of Auditors.” The MIT added that “the project continues” and that “technical and legal experts are already at work to address all concerns.” Similarly, Pietro Ciucci, CEO of the Stretto di Messina company, said he was “confident in identifying appropriate measures to resolve the issues,” relying on the Government’s commitment to restart the project.

From the opposition, however, came harsh criticism. AVS MP Angelo Bonelli — who first filed a complaint — declared that the Court “made clear the violations of the Habitat Directive” and that the Government “never considered alternatives to the single-span bridge, an unviable project.” Given the stark contrast between the technical assessments and political ambitions, the project’s path appears, for now, to remain at a dead end.