(Finance) – The Constitutional Court he thought the question of constitutionality of the entire law on the differentiated autonomy of the ordinary regions is not well founded (n. 86 of 2024), considering instead illegitimate specific provisions of the same legislative text. This is what the Council announced in a note awaiting the filing of the sentence.
According to the College, the art. 116, third paragraph, of the Constitutionwhich regulates the attribution of particular forms and conditions of autonomy to ordinary regions, must be interpreted in the context of the Italian form of state. It recognizes, together with the fundamental role of the regions and the possibility that they obtain particular forms of autonomy, the principles of the unity of the Republic, of
solidarity between regions, equality and guarantee of citizens’ rights, budget balance. The judges believe that the distribution of legislative and administrative functions between the different territorial levels of government, in implementation of the art. 116, third paragraph, must not correspond to the need for a distribution of power between the different segments of the political system, but must take place according to the common good of society and the protection of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. To this end, it is the constitutional principle of subsidiarity that regulates the distribution of functions between the State and the regions.
In this picturedifferentiated autonomy – we read in the note – it must be functional to improve the efficiency of the public apparatus, to ensure greater political responsibility and to better respond to the expectations and needs of citizens.
In detail, the Court, in examining the appeals of the Regions of Puglia, Tuscany, Sardinia and Campania, the defenses of the President of the Council of Ministers and the acts of intervention ad opposition of the Regions of Lombardy, Piedmont and Veneto, found the unconstitutionality of the following aspects of the law: the possibility that the agreement between the State and the region and the subsequent differentiation law transfer subjects or areas of subjects, where the Court believes that the devolution must concern specific legislative and administrative functions and must be justified, in relation to the individual region, in light of the aforementioned principle of subsidiarity; the granting of a legislative delegation for the determination of the essential levels of services concerning civil and social rights (LEP) without suitable directive criteria, with the consequence that the substantial decision is placed back in the hands of the Government, limiting the constitutional role of the
Parliament; the provision that a decree of the President of the Council of Ministers (dPCm) determines the updating of the LEP; the use of the procedure provided for by law no. 197 of 2022 (budget law for 2023) for the determination of the LEP with Prime Ministerial Decree, until the entry into force of the legislative decrees provided for by the same law to define the LEP; the possibility of modifying, by inter-ministerial decree, the rates of revenue sharing of state taxes, envisaged to finance the transferred functions, in the event of a discrepancy between the spending requirement and the trend of the same revenue; on the basis of this forecast, the inefficient regions could be rewarded, which – after having obtained from the State the resources aimed at exercising the transferred functions – are not able
to ensure with those resources the complete fulfillment of the same functions; the optionality, rather than the obligation, for the regions receiving devolution, to contribute to public finance objectives, with the consequent weakening of the bonds of solidarity and unity of the Republic; the extension of law no. 86 of 2024, and therefore of the art. 116, third paragraph, of the Constitution to the regions with special statutes, which instead, to obtain greater forms of autonomy, can resort to the procedures provided for by their statutes
special.
The Court interpreted other provisions of the law in a constitutionally oriented way: the legislative initiative relating to the differentiation law should not be understood as reserved solely for the Government; the differentiation law does not merely approve the agreement (“take it or leave it”) but implies the power of amendment of the Chambers; in this case the agreement may possibly be renegotiated; the limitation of the need to predetermine LEP to some subjects (distinction between “LEP subjects” and “no-LEP subjects”) must be understood in the sense that, if the legislator qualifies a subject as “no-LEP”, the related transfers cannot concern functions that concern services concerning civil and social rights; the identification, through sharing in the revenue of state taxes, of the
resources allocated to the transferred functions must take place not on the basis of historical expenditure, but rather taking standard costs and needs and efficiency criteria as a reference, freeing up resources to be kept by the State to cover expenses which, despite the devolution, still remain borne by of the same; the financial invariance clause requires – in addition to what is specified in the point
previous – that, when concluding the agreement and identifying the related resources, the general framework is taken into account
public finances, economic cycle trends, compliance with Euro-unitary obligations.
“It is up to Parliament, in the exercise of its discretion, – concludes the Court – fill the gaps resulting from the acceptance of some of the issues raised by the appellants, in compliance with constitutional principles, in order to ensure the full functionality of the
law. The Court remains competent to examine the constitutionality of individual differentiation laws, should they be challenged with appeal primarily from other regions or incidentally”.
It will be there Cassation to decide whether the referendum can be held on the same referendum question. The decision on the referendum will then return to the Council.