Order read at the hearing of June 6, 2023, and appended to Judgment No. 136 of 2023

ORDER

Having examined the case file pertaining to the proceedings concerning the constitutional challenge to Article 13, paragraph 43, of Law No. 16 of the Sicilian Regional Parliament of August 10, 2022 (Amendments to Regional Law No. 13 of May 25, 2022, and to Regional Law No. 14 of May 25, 2022. Variations to the Sicilian Regional Budget for the three-year period 2022/2024. Miscellaneous provisions), initiated by the President of the Council of Ministers with an application filed on October 17, 2022 (case file No. 78 of 2022). Having noted that, by document filed on December 12, 2022, F.M. D. intervened in the proceedings; That F.M. D. asserts that his standing to intervene derives both from his status as a registered voter in the Municipality of Aci Castello, and therefore "interested in the structure of the institutional bodies through which the cycle of political representation and accountability operates,” and "from the circumstance of having initiated the proceedings resulting in this Constitutional Court’s ruling No. 240 of December 7, 2021”; That the intervener specifically states that it was within the framework of the proceedings he initiated before the Ordinary Court of Catania, to assert his right to participate in the constitution of the governing body of the Metropolitan City of Catania, that the issues of constitutional legitimacy decided by this Court's Judgment No. 240 of 2021 were raised; That, according to the intervener, the circumstances requiring this Court in the present proceedings to "clarify the effectiveness of Judgment No. 240/2021 and, in particular, the warnings contained in point 8 of the operative part,” and that the proceedings initiated by the intervener before the ordinary courts are still pending before the Court of Cassation, would grant him "a differentiated and specific position” compared to "all other Sicilian voters,” thus legitimizing his intervention in the present proceedings. Considering that, according to the consistent case law of this Court, constitutional review proceedings in principal are conducted exclusively between entities holding legislative power and do not admit intervention by parties lacking such power; That this approach has been maintained even following the amendments to the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court introduced by this Court’s decision of January 8, 2020, "as they do not affect the admissibility requirements for interventions in principal proceedings” (order read at the hearing of February 25, 2020, and appended to Judgment No. 56 of 2020); That this Court has reached a similar conclusion on numerous subsequent occasions (ex plurimis, among the most recent, Judgments No. 76 of 2023, point 2 of the operative part, No. 259 of 2022, point 2 of the operative part, No. 221 of 2022, point 3 of the operative part, and No. 121 of 2022, point 3 of the operative part; Order No. 134 of 2022), observing, in particular, that the possibility now provided for by Articles 6 and 31 of the Supplementary Rules to submit a written opinion to this Court as amici curiae "reinforces, rather than invalidates, the preclusion of intervention” (order read at the hearing of March 22, 2022, and appended to Judgment No. 117 of 2022); That these compelling arguments dispense this Court from addressing the reasons put forward by the intervener and summarized above; That, therefore, the intervention of F.M. D. must be declared inadmissible. For these reasons

The Constitutional Court

declares the intervention in the proceedings of F.M. D. inadmissible. Signed: Silvana Sciarra, President