Tris article is a translation from the original article published in Italian on the webiste dagospia.com
Sensational! the court of supreme court has acquitted fabio de pasquale and sergio spadaro in the eni-nigeria case.
The two former Milan prosecutors, now employed by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, were sentenced to eight months in prison for failing to submit, in 2021, evidence deemed favorable to the defendants in the international corruption trial related to the six-legged dog’s (ENI) procurement in Nigeria. according to the prosecutor general’s office, which requested acquittal, the conduct of the two prosecutors was “anything but inert and omissive,” and “there is no law requiring the filing of documents at that stage…”
ENI-NIGERIA: COURT OF SUPREME COURT ACQUITS PM DE PASQUALE AND SPADARO
(Adnkronos) – The Court of Cassation has acquitted Milan prosecutor Fabio De Pasquale and his colleague Sergio Spadaro, now employed by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, on the grounds of “no facts being proved.”
The judges of the Sixth Criminal Section of the Supreme Court ruled this in the proceedings for refusal to perform official duties in the Eni-Nigeria investigation, annulling the appeal ruling without referral.
Both magistrates were accused of failing to produce evidence in 2021 that was deemed potentially favorable to the defendants in the Eni-Nigeria international corruption trial, which ended with the acquittal of all defendants.
Last October, the judges of the Brescia Court of Appeal upheld the eight-month suspended sentence handed down to the two magistrates in the first instance. In this morning’s closing speech, Deputy Attorney General Cristina Marzagalli urged the defendants’ acquittal.
“The defendants’ appeals are well-founded,” the prosecutor emphasized. “There was no refusal, and sound procedural decisions were made. The two magistrates’ conduct was anything but inert and omission-based, but rather proactive. Furthermore, the material object of the refusal was not included in the records, and there is no law requiring filing at that stage.”
ENI-NIGERIA: DE PASQUALE AND SPADARO’S DEFENSE: “THE SENTENCE DOES JUSTICE FOR MANY YEARS OF SUFFERING.”
(Adnkronos) – “Lawyer Fabio Federico and I are truly happy: it is a ruling that brings justice to so many years of suffering. We would like to emphasize that the conclusions of the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation were comprehensive: he requested the absence of both the material fact and, secondarily, the subjective element. He could not have said more than that.”
This was stated by defense attorney Massimo Dinoia following the Supreme Court’s verdict, in which Milan prosecutor Fabio De Pasquale and his colleague Sergio Spadaro, now with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, were acquitted on the grounds of “no facts” after two convictions in the first instance and on appeal. Both magistrates were accused of failing to submit evidence deemed potentially favorable to the defendants in the Eni-Nigeria international corruption trial in 2021, which ended with the acquittal of all defendants.
SOURCE
CLAMOROSO! LA CASSAZIONE HA ASSOLTO FABIO DE PASQUALE E SERGIO SPADARO, SUL CASO ENI-NIGERIA.
Italy’s “Eni Case” Prosecutor Acquittal: What Happened and Why It Matters
On 18 June 2026, Italy’s Court of Cassation issued a ruling that brought an end to a long-running judicial controversy linked to the massive Eni–Shell Nigeria corruption trial (OPL 245). Two Milan prosecutors, Fabio De Pasquale and Sergio Spadaro, were fully acquitted after previously being accused of withholding evidence during the original proceedings.
Although technically a procedural case about prosecutorial conduct, the ruling has become a broader symbol of how accountability, judicial independence, and prosecutorial discretion are balanced in the Italian legal system.
The background: the OPL 245 trial
The OPL 245 case concerned allegations that Eni and Shell were involved in corruption related to the acquisition of an oil block in Nigeria. The case became one of the most significant international corruption trials in Italy.
After years of proceedings, all defendants were ultimately acquitted in 2021. However, during and after the trial, questions emerged about how certain evidence was handled by the Milan prosecution team.
The prosecution of prosecutors
Separate from the original corruption case, Italian judicial authorities in Brescia opened an investigation into two Milan prosecutors involved in the trial.
They were accused of:
- allegedly failing to disclose potentially relevant evidence to the defense
- procedural misconduct during the handling of the case
Importantly, this investigation was not initiated by Eni or Shell. Instead, it arose from within the Italian judicial system itself, which assigns oversight of prosecutors to courts in other jurisdictions to avoid conflicts of interest.
The prosecutors were initially convicted in lower courts and given a short custodial sentence (suspended). This was seen by some commentators as a rare instance of prosecutors being held personally accountable for conduct during a major corporate corruption trial.
The Court of Cassation ruling
On appeal, the Court of Cassation overturned the convictions entirely, stating that the offence did not exist in the legal sense required for criminal liability.
In practical terms, the Court’s decision reinforced a strict interpretation of prosecutorial independence: mistakes or discretionary decisions made during a trial do not automatically amount to criminal wrongdoing.
Why the ruling is controversial
The decision has sparked debate in Italy between two competing principles:
1. Accountability perspective
Critics argue that prosecutors must be held responsible when they fail to disclose evidence that could benefit defendants. Without accountability, they say, public trust in the justice system is weakened.
2. Judicial independence perspective
Supporters of the ruling argue that exposing prosecutors to personal criminal liability for procedural decisions would have a chilling effect, discouraging them from pursuing complex corruption cases.
The Court’s ruling clearly leans toward the second position.
What this means in practice
Legally, the decision does not change the outcome of the Eni–Shell trial, nor does it reopen or alter the acquittals of the corporate defendants.
However, it does influence the broader legal environment in Italy by:
- reinforcing strong protections for prosecutors
- making it more difficult to pursue criminal cases against magistrates for procedural conduct
- strengthening the principle of judicial independence over individual accountability mechanisms
Does this affect corporate disputes today?
In ongoing or future disputes involving large corporations and public prosecutors, the ruling may indirectly matter in one way: it reduces the likelihood that alleged procedural errors by prosecutors will lead to personal criminal liability.
However, it does not eliminate the possibility of challenging evidence, procedural fairness, or legal arguments within civil, administrative, or criminal proceedings.
Conclusion
The acquittal of the two Milan prosecutors is less about the individuals involved and more about the structure of the Italian justice system itself.
It highlights a long-standing tension: how to ensure prosecutors are both independent enough to pursue complex corruption cases, yet accountable enough to maintain public trust.
The Court of Cassation has now sent a clear message: in cases of procedural judgment, independence takes precedence.
Personal Remarks
If I get it right …. Two Milan prosecutors involved in the Eni–Shell OPL 245 corruption trial were later investigated by a separate Italian judicial authority for allegedly failing to disclose material that could have been useful to the defence (ENI / Shell). They were convicted in the first instance and on appeal and received suspended prison sentences. However, Italy’s Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) later annulled the convictions entirely, ruling that the conduct did not amount to a criminal offence.
I mean …. to get prosecutors prosecuted is very rare in practice, especially when compared to the number of criminal cases prosecutors handle.
Let me repeat this … prosecutors prosecuted and sentenced to 8 months jail….. I mean how do you get prosecutors prosecuted and sentenced?
Do you understand what I mean? I mean do you read between the lines or do you need a powerpoint presentation?
In this case, I believe the Supreme Court was correct. It’s important to protect judges involved in corruption cases like the ENI/Shell/Nigeria corruption case… otherwise society is going to slide into fucking hell.