Former CEO of Italian highway operator sentenced over Genoa bridge tragedy
Justice Delayed but Delivered: Former Atlantia Chief Receives 12-Year Term for Genoa Bridge Catastrophe
A Verdict That Resonates Through Italian Society
Former CEO of Italian highway operator – In a courtroom filled with the families of those lost, an Italian judicial body delivered its judgment on Thursday, handing former Atlantia chief executive Giovanni Castellucci a twelve-year prison sentence. The ruling addresses the devastating 2018 collapse of a motorway bridge that claimed forty-three lives in the northwestern Italian port city of Genoa. This verdict represents more than a legal conclusion; it embodies a nation’s ongoing quest for accountability following one of its worst infrastructure failures.
At the moment of the tragedy, Atlantia held the controlling shareholder position in Autostrade per l’Italia, the company responsible for operating the nation’s motorway network. When the structure gave way, vehicles carrying commuters and travelers plummeted from the elevated roadway below. The courtroom was densely packed with relatives who had waited years to hear the outcome of proceedings that have come to symbolize both the pursuit of justice and the notoriously sluggish pace of complex Italian criminal cases.
Legal Framework and Trial Participants
Under Italy’s legal system, this initial ruling is not final. The verdict can be appealed at minimum two additional times through higher courts, meaning the legal process may continue for years. Castellucci, who was not present in court to hear the announcement, is already incarcerated serving a separate six-year sentence connected to another fatal accident that occurred in 2013 on a viaduct located in southern Italy.
The trial encompassed fifty-seven defendants in total. Among those facing charges were corporate executives, structural engineers, and officials from the transport ministry. The most severe accusations brought against them included multiple counts of manslaughter alongside criminal negligence. Prosecutors contended that a combination of insufficient maintenance practices, overlooked warning indicators, and postponed safety improvements collectively contributed to the catastrophic failure.
The Day the Bridge Fell
The Morandi bridge, which had stood for fifty-one years at the time of its collapse, crumbled during a summer storm on the evening before a national holiday. The disaster sent shockwaves throughout Italy and initiated years of intensive investigations into how the country managed and maintained its aging infrastructure network. A massive section of the bridge, measuring fifty metres or approximately 160 feet in height, collapsed while as many as thirty-five vehicles were traveling across it simultaneously.
Those vehicles were sent plunging downward onto warehouses and a riverbed situated beneath the structure. The human and material toll was enormous, and the event triggered a significant political and commercial dispute. Atlantia, which is controlled by the prominent Benetton family, found itself in conflict with the Italian government at that time. The disagreement ultimately concluded with Atlantia selling its controlling stake in Autostrade.
Voices from Both Sides
On Wednesday, the current head of Autostrade released an open letter reaffirming the organization’s dedication to preventing a similar tragedy from occurring again. The letter expressed sincere regret to those affected.
“I wish to apologize to the victims’ families, to the people of Genoa, and to all Italians for the suffering caused by the tragic Morandi disaster, fully aware that our gesture can never erase their pain,” Autostrade CEO Arrigo Giana wrote in his public statement.
While prosecutors maintained that profits continued to be generated and distributed even as critical maintenance work was delayed, defense attorneys presented a different perspective. They argued that the catastrophe resulted from an original design flaw within the bridge’s stay cable number nine—the specific cable that failed during the storm. According to the defense, no maintenance program, regardless of how rigorous, could have prevented this particular structural failure from occurring.
As the legal proceedings continue through their appeal stages, the case remains a powerful reminder of the consequences when infrastructure management fails and of the long journey toward justice that victims’ families must endure.