The pantouflage phenomenon frequently resurfaces when institutional figures who have exercised regulatory powers transfer to companies subject to that control.

The case of the move of a member of Italian ENAC’s board of directors to the management of ITA Airways represents a crucial test, especially in light of ANAC’s Guideline No. 1 - Italian Anti‑Corruption Authority- (resolution 493/25.9.2024) and the new Sanctioning Regulation (resolution 493‑bis). Essential legal framework: Article 53, para. 16‑ter, Legislative Decree 165/2001 prohibits, for three years after termination, activities for subjects who were recipients of authorising acts exercised in the last three years of service; Article 21 of Legislative Decree 39/2013 extends the notion of “public employee” to holders of appointments (including directors) governed by the decree.

ENAC (Italian Civil Aviation Authority) is indisputably a non‑economic public body: it exercises regulatory, certification and supervisory functions (AOC, transport licence) and its top leadership is appointed by the ministry. Therefore the role of the board member falls within the personal scope of the rule, but the application of the prohibition requires verification of the actual exercise of authorising or contractual powers vis‑à‑vis ITA in the last three years. Formal title alone is not sufficient: it is necessary to examine minutes and board resolutions to identify decisions that have directly or indirectly affected the legal or competitive position of the company (issuance/renewal of the AOC, supervision, public service obligations, sanctioning proceedings). If the relationship with ITA is under negotiation while the board member is still in office, the obligation to abstain applies (Article 6‑bis Law 241/1990; DPR 62/2013) and there is a risk of illegitimacy of acts adopted with their participation. After cessation, the three‑year ban may render the contract void and entail restitution of remuneration; ITA also risks a prohibition on contracting with public administrations, with serious operational impacts. The prudent strategy is to wait out the “cooling‑off” period or request a preventive opinion from ANAC (art.1, para.2, lett. e), Law 190/2012) to reduce the risk of challenges and sanctions.