Seventeen months after an explosion tore through an Eni depot near Florence, killing five workers, prosecutors have concluded their investigation and referred nine individuals to trial. They exonerated the energy giant as a corporate entity.
Prato prosecutors formally closed their investigation into the 9 December 2024 explosion at Eni’s fuel storage depot in Calenzano, in the province of Florence, on 19 May, notifying nine suspects that they face trial. Seven of the nine are Eni executives and supervisors; the other two are employees of Sergen, a contractor working on the site at the time of the blast. They face charges including multiple manslaughter, negligent disaster, and causing bodily harm.
The preliminary hearing — known as an incidente probatorio — ran from March 2025 to April 2026. Expert evidence was preserved and tested before any trial begins, given the technical complexity of the case.
What the investigation found
Among the errors described by prosecutors as “inexcusable” was allowing ignition sources — specifically the combustion engine of an elevating platform used during maintenance on the fuel loading lines — to be present in an area at high risk of explosion. La Bussola TV
Prosecutor Luca Tescaroli, who led the investigation, stated that the explosion could have been prevented had proper safety protocols and risk assessments been followed. Furthermore, maintenance work was being carried out simultaneously with the loading of tanker trucks — a practice that should not have been permitted. According to prosecutors’ calculations, halting fuel transfers between 9am and 3pm on the day of the disaster would have resulted in an estimated loss of €255,000 in revenue — a figure that underlines the pressure to keep operations running.
Investigators also found evidence of an alleged attempt to obstruct justice. Documents were added to a shared folder between Eni and Sergen after the explosion, suggesting an effort to manipulate evidence and obscure the chain of responsibility.
The seven Eni suspects named
Those named from within Eni include Luigi Cullurà, the executive with delegated responsibility for safety at the Calenzano depot; Carlo Di Perna, head of Maintenance and Investments for Central Depots; Marco Bini, the Eni site supervisor who issued the work permit classifying Sergen’s activities; and Andrea Strafelini, the day-to-day operational coordinator. The identities of the remaining Eni suspects and the two Sergen employees have not yet been fully confirmed in published reports.
Eni SpA cleared of corporate liability
The most significant legal finding for the company itself is that Eni SpA has been excluded from prosecution for administrative offences under Italy’s corporate liability statute, Legislative Decree 231/2001. This legislation allows companies to be held accountable for crimes committed by their employees in the company’s interest.
According to the Prato prosecutor’s office, the preliminary hearing found that “the organisational model was correct” and that “no evidence emerged regarding a causal link between the model’s provisions and the events” of 9 December 2024. In short, the explosion will be treated as the result of individual human failings rather than systemic corporate negligence. Prosecutors have stressed that the conclusion of the preliminary investigation does not represent a verdict, and that the defence teams of all nine suspects will have the opportunity to challenge the reconstruction in court.
Eni stated at the time of the original indictments that it was fully committed to cooperating with authorities, to identifying the causes of the accident, and to compensating the families of the victims. A separate environmental inquiry remains open regarding an alleged discharge of industrial effluent into the Tomerello stream in the aftermath of the blast.
The disaster
The explosion at the Calenzano depot on 9 December 2024 killed five workers, all aged between 45 and 62, and injured 27 others. The blast sent a column of smoke visible for miles across the Florentine plain and caused substantial damage to the surrounding area. A court-appointed expert described the event as “non-accidental” — meaning investigators concluded from the outset that negligence, not chance, was responsible.
