Italy. Sued and acquitted after 6 years. Ossigeno helps him cover the costs

Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:

Journalist Carlo Ruocco recounts his lengthy trial – “I’m stunned, my protections have been retroactively reduced,” he says, reflecting on the risks of working without a publisher’s indemnity.

OSSIGENO, September 19, 2025 – The Ossigeno Legal Aid Desk, which works in collaboration with Media Defence, has granted journalist Carlo Ruocco a cash contribution (gratuity) to cover the legal costs he incurred defending himself from a defamation lawsuit that appeared unfounded from the outset and proved so at the end of a six-year trial.

The journalist thanks Ossigeno and reconstructs the story in the following text. He describes what it means to be sued on a spurious basis and what it means to defend oneself without the indemnity of a publisher, without a legal safety net, as happens to many Italian journalists hit by frivolous lawsuits, SLAPPs, and other retaliatory actions for revealing uncomfortable truths, shady dealings, or for speaking out about other taboo subjects, as also recounted in other stories by Ossigeno, which can be read at this link. It’s a serious problem.

By Carlo Ruocco – First of all, I would like to thank Ossigeno per l’Informazione, the only organisation that took concrete action to help me in the difficult situation I found myself in with this trial.

I’ve been a professional journalist since 1976. Throughout my professional career, at the La Spezia editorial office of Secolo XIX, I’ve focused primarily on court reporting, investigations into environmental issues such as the Pitelli toxic waste dumps, (“hills of poison”) and health issues. These three areas of reporting carry a high risk of lawsuits. And thus I’ve been sued and prosecuted many times for libel. I haven’t kept precise count of how many times I’ve been called upon to defend myself but it’s certainly in double figures.

The most sensational lawsuit was brought against me in the late 1990s by Franco Tatò, in his capacity as CEO of the multinational power company Enel during the presidency of Chicco Testa, former leader of Legambiente, with a claim for damages of ten billion lire from me and ten billion from the publisher Perrone. The incriminating article arose from an invitation from Enel itself to the local press to visit a giant generating plant, suspected of being a source of significant pollution. Enel had set up a network of stations, entrusted to Arpa Liguria (the regional agency for environmental protection), to monitor air quality in the Gulf of La Spezia and on the surrounding hills and to demonstrate its “innocence.” At the plant, a Star Wars-style monitoring room monitored the shadow cone of the smoke from Enel’s smokestacks and the pollutant levels detected in real time by the stations. I noticed that outside the smoke cone, in some pleasant seaside or hillside locations, where there were no sources of pollution, the stations recorded higher pollution levels than those detected by the stations located within the smoke cone. I had a printout made and wrote an article raising doubts about the reliability of the stations. A lawsuit and a huge demand for compensation were filed.

After a year the prosecutor’s office and the preliminary investigating judges agreed to dismiss the case because I had diligently carried out my work. In the civil court, Enel’s claim was reduced to a request for a “remedial article,” which I refused to write. But for a year, the newspaper’s management limited my investigative work. The only satisfaction was that the case ended up on the satirical TV programme, Striscia la Notizia, with a Golden Tapir awarded to Chicco Testa (the tapir is a rare mammal regarded as a living fossil). But I had then a publisher who provided me with legal assistance.

However, with the lawsuit from the entrepreneur Giuseppe Miranda, for the first time I ended up in the dock without a publisher behind me. And it was much harder and more stressful. The lengthy proceedings, three changes of judges, and various postponements not requested by us, decided ex officio, all weighed heavily. All of this ended up damaging me. So much for the principle of due process! I began the trial with greater protections for the defendant. During the proceedings, my protections were reduced retroactively. I am, to say the least, discombobulated.

On the merits of the case, I had to respond to the content of articles that reflected the documented criticisms levelled by the committee of Sarzana,Che Botta! (an advocacy group in the town of Sarzana), engaged in battles to protect the environment and urban landscape in this medieval city. Even better: the articles’ content was that of a petition addressed to the Sarzana City Council, signed by over 500 citizens, regarding a construction project not covered by the urban planning regulations. The petition had been widely publicised in the local press and was belatedly discussed in the city council. No administrator, no politician, no authority ever challenged the content of the observations. The petition was precise in its references to the project data and regulations. The Committee was never contradicted or censured for the technical content in the lawsuit. The prosecutor’s office itself had requested the dismissal of the complaint based on the statements of two judicial police officers, who had found no defamatory content. The Preliminary Investigations Judge, on the other hand, accepted the arguments of the plaintiff’s lawyer.

ASP