Italian Government Ready To Overcome Court Hurdles to Messina Bridge

Dec. 7—The Italian Court of Accounts has recently published the motivations for its ruling that denied approval to the government project for the Bridge over the Strait of Messina to Sicily in October. The Court took the full 30 days allotted to provide the justification for its ruling, confirming suspicions that the Court members aim at hindering the project as much as possible. Meanwhile, the government appears ready to overcome these obstacles to get the long-delayed, but widely supported project underway.

The motivations are articulated in three points: 1. possible violations of the Natural Habitats Directive; 2. incorrect application of the Public Procurement Directive on contract modifications, 3. failure of the Transport Regulatory Authority to issue an opinion on the tariff plan.

To make it clearer: the violation of what is known as the “Habitat Directive,” is Directive 92/43/EC, a European Union regulation that aims to conserve biodiversity by protecting animal and plant species considered to be of Community interest. The background: Italian environmentalists had protested at the Commission and the Commission had sent a letter to the contractor, asking for clarification. The Società Stretto di Messina SpA had answered, proving that the construction site would not damage those areas (which, by the way, were created after the Messina Bridge project had been originally developed and started to be implemented in 2011).

Motivation no. 2 refers to increased costs relative to the original project. This is due to inflation, which has been documented but ignored by the court.

Motivation no. 3 refers to the fact that future tolls will not pay back construction costs. Such an option, however, is not binding and de facto has been rejected by the government, in favor of financing the bridge out of the government budget because of its function as a driver of economic development.

The Meloni government and the Società Stretto di Messina SpA are confident that they can provide formally exhaustive answers to the Court. If this does not work, the government has the power to proceed without consent of the Court of Accounts, though.