Government revises Strait of Messina Bridge Decree
The Italian government has revised the Strait of Messina Bridge decree, retreating from controversial measures included in the original draft. The changes follow strong institutional objections and political pressure in the run-up to the Council of Ministers meeting.
The revised text drops plans to appoint a government “super-commissioner” for the project. It also removes provisions that would have limited oversight by the Court of Auditors. Those clauses had raised concerns about constitutional safeguards and financial accountability.
The bridge project, designed to link Sicily and Calabria by road and rail, remains one of Italy’s most divisive infrastructure plans. Successive governments have described it as a strategic priority. However, legal, environmental and procedural obstacles have repeatedly delayed progress.
At the centre of the dispute was a proposal to restrict the Court of Auditors’ power to carry out preventive legitimacy checks. The initial draft would have confined the court’s role to a narrow review of the final approval act. It also envisaged appointing Pietro Ciucci, head of Stretto di Messina S.p.A., as a special commissioner to accelerate procedures.
Those elements triggered immediate criticism from legal experts and institutional bodies. The Quirinale signalled that any attempt to curb the court’s authority would be incompatible with the constitution. Concerns also emerged over the concentration of powers and the management of public funds.
Court of Auditors retains full oversight powers
Following those objections, the government rewrote the Messina Bridge decree. Under the new version, the Court of Auditors retains full oversight powers. This includes the ability to examine preparatory documents linked to the project, not only the final CIPESS approval.
Infrastructure Minister Matteo Salvini denied that the government ever intended to silence the court. He said any provision limiting its role would be illegal. Salvini added that resolving the court’s objections remains the responsibility of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
