Add the Gazzetta del Sud as a source
The Court of Auditors, Jurisdictional Section of Calabria, rejected the tax liability action against the engineer Vincenzo De Sarro, defended by the lawyer Alfredo Gualtieri of the Court of Catanzaro. The matter concerned the activities relating to the supervision of a section of the Trasversale delle Serre, relating to section IV and IV bis between the municipalities of Argusto and Serra San Bruno.
The Accounting Prosecutor’s Office charged De Sarro with treasury damages quantified at around 4 million euros, as part of an overall proceeding worth over 18 and a half million also attributed to three other technicians.
The prosecution’s objections
According to the accusation, during the execution of the work, economic mediation and financial management were resorted to which would have led to the exceeding of the contractual terms, with a substantial modification of the original contents of the agreements between the parties.
Hence the complaints relating to variations during construction, extensions and deferrals in the execution of the works, considered partly attributable to the subjects involved in the Prosecutor’s action.
The choice to proceed with variants and amicable agreements, rather than with the re-contracting of the work, would also have been linked, according to the accusatory approach, to the lack of motivated reports from the Rup and the director of the works.
The Court’s decision
The Court of Auditors, in response to the objections formulated by the defence, had ordered an official technical consultancy entrusted to the president of the Order of Engineers of Catanzaro, engineer Cuffaro.
In light of the appraisal filed, shared by the accounting judges, “the correctness of the actions of engineer De Sarro” was ascertained, also noting that “no objection can be made to him with regard to the preparation of the two technical and supplementary variant appraisals, given the legitimacy and usefulness of the same and the extension of the deadline for completing the works”.
The Court also highlighted that the technician “sent a detailed report to the Anas departmental legal office containing the indication of the subjects held responsible for the critical issues that had negatively affected the progress of the works, prompting the activation of an active dispute”, without receiving any response.
The Calabrian Section of the Court of Auditors therefore rejected all the questions formulated by the Prosecutor’s Office, also ordering the costs of the litigation to be paid by Anas.