Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s ambitious plan to build a €13.5 billion bridge linking Sicily to mainland Italy has encountered significant opposition from the Court of Auditors, which has raised legal and procedural concerns over the revival of the decades-old project without a new public tender.
In an internal interim assessment obtained by the Financial Times, the court expressed “serious doubts” about the legitimacy of the government’s decision to award the €10.6 billion main contract to a consortium led by Webuild, a Rome-based construction company, without launching a fresh bidding process. The project, initially tendered in 2005 and later abandoned amid Italy’s 2012 sovereign debt crisis, was formally cancelled more than a decade ago.
Concerns Over Legitimacy and Competition
The original contract — valued then at €3.8 billion — was won by Impregilo, which later merged into Webuild. When the project was cancelled, Impregilo sued the government for €700 million in damages. Webuild agreed to drop the lawsuit if the bridge were revived under the new administration.
However, the auditors noted that the design, cost, and financing structure of the bridge have changed significantly since the original tender, rendering the 20-year-old process outdated and potentially noncompliant with EU competition laws.
“Doubts remain as to the compliance of the overall transaction with European Union principles, particularly that of competition,” the investigating magistrate wrote in the court’s 24-page report. The court has referred the case to a wider panel of judges to assess its legality, with a final ruling expected on November 7.
Technical and Safety Issues
Beyond legal concerns, the court also questioned the engineering validity of the project. The proposed 3.3km suspension bridge — set to become one of the world’s longest — would be built across a seismically active region, yet relies on geological and technical studies dating back to 1997. The magistrate criticized the lack of a new review by Italy’s Supreme Council for Public Works, describing the government’s response to safety concerns as inadequate.
Government Defence and Political Pressure
The government insists the project adheres to both Italian and EU regulations. Pietro Ciucci, CEO of Stretto di Messina, the state-owned company overseeing the bridge, said he was confident in a positive outcome. “We have acted in full compliance with both Italian and European regulations,” he said, adding that all clarifications requested by the court would be provided.
The Meloni administration has defended the bridge as a strategic national priority, not merely an infrastructure project. Officials argue that the crossing would enhance national security, connect vital NATO bases in Sicily, and strengthen Italy’s southern economy — long viewed as underdeveloped compared to the industrial north.
Unlike earlier iterations, which relied partly on private investors, Meloni’s plan is to fund the project entirely with public money, further heightening scrutiny from fiscal watchdogs.
Environmental and Political Resistance
Environmental groups and anti-bridge campaigners have seized on the court’s findings, arguing that they echo long-standing criticisms. “The court highlights exactly the same problems that we did,” said Guido Signorino, former deputy mayor of Messina and a leading opponent of the project. “For any future legal opposition, this is grease for our wheels.”
The project also faces EU environmental hurdles. The Messina Strait, where the bridge would be built, is part of the Natura 2000 Network — a collection of protected ecosystems vital to European biodiversity and bird migration routes. The auditors warned that three Natura 2000 sites would be affected, casting doubt on Rome’s 2024 decision to classify the project as of “overriding public interest,” a move designed to bypass environmental restrictions.
A Century-Old Dream, Renewed Controversy
The dream of a bridge across the Strait of Messina has captivated Italian politicians since the late 19th century and resurfaced in nearly every major infrastructure debate since the 1970s. Proponents hail it as a symbol of unity and progress, while critics see it as a costly, risky, and environmentally destructive vanity project.
Now, as the Court of Auditors prepares its final ruling, Meloni’s flagship initiative hangs in the balance — a test not only of her government’s commitment to Italy’s south but also of its adherence to European legal and environmental standards.
