The risks associated with inadequate maintenance of freight wagon axles were well known to insiders when the Viareggio massacre occurred and proper maintenance would have avoided the train accident. This was stated by the judges of the Court of Cassation, in the grounds of the third degree sentence of the trial linked to the tragedy of June 29, 2009 in which 32 people lost their lives. A sentence read in the courtroom on January 8 and the reasons for which were disclosed on Monday afternoon, almost 8 months later.
A full-bodied document where the stoats state that “the aggravating circumstance of the violation of the rules on safety at work cannot be applied to the crime of manslaughter contested in this process, because the victims are not comparable to workers and therefore they cannot be recognized as occupational risk “. A key passage, that of the aggravating failure of the accident in the workplace, sentenced instead by the judges in the first instance in Lucca and on appeal in Florence. Without aggravating circumstance, in fact, the crime of multiple manslaughter has also ended up in statute of limitations, after that between the first and second degree this procedure had already started for the offenses of negligent fire and serious and very serious negligent injuries. To date, the only crime of the culpable railway disaster remains standing, which will see the defendants involved subjected to a new appeal process aimed at recalibrating their sentences.
The “prince” accused in the trial for the Viareggio massacre is the former CEO of FS and RFI Mauro Moretti (sentenced in first and second degree to 7 years in prison), who during the appeal had decided to renounce the statute of limitations . Well, according to the Supreme Court judges, that choice is not valid. Moretti’s declaration, the judges specify, “aimed at renouncing the prescription for all crimes that have been extinguished, cannot be considered effective because it was made before the extinction of the crime occurred”. “The remedy – always maintains the Supreme Court – can be found in reserving to the referral judgment the verification of the defendant’s will to renounce the prescription of manslaughter offenses”. In short, if Moretti really wants to renounce the prescription, he will have to do it again during the appeal – bis. The ermellini also recall in their sentence what was claimed by the judges of the Court of Appeal of Florence, that is, how Moretti, after the termination of his office in RFI, had maintained “strong powers of control and direction over associated companies, including RFI itself”.
“Since before the occurrence of the Viareggio accident – still claims the Supreme Court – all operators in the railway sector were aware of the fact that maintenance not carried out in a workmanlike manner had been the cause of some railway accidentsthe. The practices established for national freight wagons also attest to the knowledge of the risk deriving from inadequate maintenance of the axles. It was never even represented that the wagon sidetracked in Viareggio had such constructive characteristics as to make it significantly different from the national ones ».
A wait that lasted eight months. This is what is underlined among the relatives of the victims: «It is already something that they have come out – observes Marco Piagentini, president of the association that brings together the relatives` The World I would like ‘, but we still don’t know anything. Since there will be some technical passages, we must read them with our lawyers to understand the content well, especially the passage concerning the accident at work. Then we will make a press release and a press conference to comment on everything ». Riccardo Antonini, the railway worker fired for having acted as a consultant to the victims of the massacre, is concise in his comment. “Better late than never – he says – it took them almost like a childbirth, for the time it took to bring out the reasons. Certainly the Supreme Court in three hearings overturned the 180 hearings that took place both at first instance and on appeal ».
6 September 2021 | 20:33
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED