JUDGMENT NO. 19

YEAR 2024

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Augusto Antonio BARBERA;

Judges: Franco MODUGNO, Giulio PROSPERETTI, Giovanni AMOROSO, Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI,

has issued the following

JUDGMENT

in the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of March 11, 2005 (Law for the Governance of the Territory), initiated by the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Lombardy, detached section of Brescia, first section, in the proceedings between Cartiere Villa Lagarina spa and the Municipality of Mantua, by order of June 28, 2023, registered under No. 105 of the register of orders 2023 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 35, first special series, of the year 2023.

Having regard to the act of constitution of Cartiere Villa Lagarina spa, as well as the act of intervention of the Region of Lombardy;

Having heard at the public hearing of January 10, 2024, Judge Rapporteur Marco D’Alberti;

Having heard lawyers Vincenzo Pellegrini and Alberto Mascotto for Cartiere Villa Lagarina spa and Alessandra Zimmitti for the Region of Lombardy;

Resolved in the council chamber of January 10, 2024.

Considered in fact

1.– By order of June 28, 2023 (reg. ord. No. 105 of 2023), the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Lombardy, detached section of Brescia, first section, raised a question of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of March 11, 2005 (Law for the Governance of the Territory), with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution, in relation to Articles 146 and 167, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 42 of January 22, 2004 (Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, pursuant to Article 10 of Law No. 137 of July 6, 2002).

1.1.– The referring court describes the facts of the case a quo in the following terms.

Cartiere Villa Lagarina spa (hereinafter, also: the company) is the owner of an industrial complex known as «Cartiera ex Burgo», located in the Municipality of Mantua, in an area partially subject to landscape restrictions.

After the purchase, the company carried out a series of building and industrial renovation works to restart production, given that the plant was in a state of neglect.

The Municipality and the Province of Mantua adopted sanctioning measures in relation to some of these works, because they were carried out without landscape authorization or in violation thereof.

The company challenged the sanctioning measures with separate appeals before the Regional Administrative Tribunal.

The introductory appeal of the proceedings a quo concerns order No. 74/2020 of May 18, 2020, with which the Municipality of Mantua ordered the company to pay the sum of EUR 709,204.16 as a pecuniary sanction, relating to works carried out on the ventilation systems of the plant in the absence of landscape authorization (as well as a building permit).

For these works, for which the Municipality of Mantua had already ordered the restoration to the previous state, the company had submitted an application for regularization pursuant to Article 36 of Presidential Decree No. 380 of June 6, 2001, containing the «Consolidated Law on Legislative and Regulatory Provisions in Building Matters (Test A)», and a request for assessment of landscape compatibility pursuant to Article 167 of the Code of Cultural Heritage.

Once such compatibility had been ascertained, the same Municipality issued the measure challenged in the proceedings a quo, applying the pecuniary sanction provided for in paragraph 5, third and fourth periods, of the aforementioned Article 167, according to which «[w]hen landscape compatibility is ascertained, the transgressor is required to pay a sum equivalent to the greater amount between the damage caused and the profit obtained through the transgression. The amount of the pecuniary sanction is determined after an expert appraisal».

The amount of the sanction was determined pursuant to Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005, in the text introduced by Article 27 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 17 of December 4, 2018 (Law on Regulatory Revision and Simplification 2018), according to which «[t]he application of the pecuniary sanction, provided for by Article 167 of Legislative Decree No. 42/2004, as an alternative to restoration to the previous state, is mandatory also in the event of the absence of environmental damage and, in this case, it must be quantified in relation to the profit obtained and, in any case, in an amount not less than eighty percent of the theoretical cost of carrying out the illegal works and/or work, deducible from the relevant bill of quantities and the unit prices resulting from the price lists of the Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Crafts and Agriculture of the province, in any case, with a minimum sanction of five hundred euros».

In the absence of environmental damage, the expert appraisal ordered by the Municipality of Mantua quantified the theoretical cost of carrying out the illegal works at EUR 886,505.20, reaching the final sum of EUR 709,204.16, equal to eighty percent of this cost, payment of which was ordered.

1.2.– Cartiere Villa Lagarina spa requested the annulment of the challenged measure and the redetermination of the sanction to the minimum amount of five hundred euros for each individual transgression, therefore to the overall amount of two thousand euros or, alternatively, four thousand euros.

With the third ground of appeal, which is relevant in this case, the company argued the derivative illegitimacy of the challenged measure, consequent to the asserted constitutional illegitimacy, with reference to Articles 23, 25, 117, second paragraph, letters l), m) and s), and 118 of the Constitution, of the regional provision applied by the Municipality to determine the amount of the sanction.

1.2.1.– During the proceedings a quo, Cartiere Villa Lagarina spa presented additional grounds of appeal, challenging for the same reasons set out above the tax assessment with which the Revenue Agency, on behalf of the Municipality of Mantua, had medio tempore demanded the collection of the amounts determined in the various sanctioning measures relating to the works carried out in the «Cartiera ex Burgo» plant, including the amount due by virtue of municipal order No. 74/2020 of May 18, 2020.

1.2.2.– The referring court also reports that, in the precautionary phase, the request for suspension of the effectiveness of the tax assessment challenged with the additional grounds of appeal was accepted and that the hearing on the merits was postponed, at the request of a party, pending the definition of the question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005, raised by the same Regional Administrative Tribunal in a similar dispute between the same parties.

Once the constitutional question relating to the aforementioned similar dispute had been defined with order No. 22 of 2023, which declared the question inadmissible, the Regional Administrative Tribunal set the public hearing for the discussion on the merits, at the end of which the case was held over for decision.

1.3.– The Regional Administrative Tribunal, with regard to the third ground, which, as mentioned, is relevant here, considers that the question of constitutional legitimacy raised therein is relevant and not manifestly unfounded, in similar terms to those already set out when raising the similar question decided by this Court with the declaration of inadmissibility referred to in the aforementioned order No. 22 of 2023.

According to the referring court, this pronouncement would not preclude the re-proposition of the question.

Indeed, this Court considered that the requirement of relevance was absent, as the Regional Administrative Tribunal had decided the two sole grounds of appeal put forward in the previous proceedings a quo, rejecting them both, with the consequence that, at the time of the referral of the question, its potestas iudicandi had already been exhausted.

On the other hand, in the present proceedings a quo, the question would constitute the prerequisite of a specific challenge of derivative illegitimacy of the challenged sanctioning measure, argued with the third ground of appeal, not yet decided by the Regional Administrative Tribunal.

The latter would therefore retain its potestas iudicandi intact and, with it, the power to promote the incident of constitutional legitimacy, the definition of which would be of a preliminary nature with respect to the main proceedings.

1.4.– That being stated, the referring court observes, on the point of relevance, that in this case the pecuniary sanction provided for by Article 167 of the Code of Cultural Heritage was determined by applying Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005.

In particular, the sanction was quantified on the basis of an expert appraisal that determined the theoretical cost of carrying out the illegal works and work, in accordance with what is provided for by the contested regional law.

However, while Article 167, paragraph 5, third period, of the Code of Cultural Heritage uses as parameters for the determination of the sanction «the damage caused» and «the profit obtained through the transgression», Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005 also refers to the «theoretical cost of carrying out the illegal works and/or work».

Consequently, the possible declaration of the constitutional illegitimacy of the aforementioned Article 83 «would determine the illegitimacy of the sanctioning measure that applied it and therefore the acceptance of the appeal with reference to this sole profile, argued by the appellant party with the third ground of appeal». The annulment of the sanction to the extent imposed would also constitute the necessary prerequisite for its possible redetermination to the lesser amounts indicated by the company.

1.5.– With regard to the not manifestly unfounded nature, the referring court considers that the regulation of the administrative sanctions provided for in the event of non-compliance with the provisions contained in Part Three of the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape should be ascribed to the exclusive legislative competence of the State, pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution, as falling within the matter of «protection of the environment, ecosystem and cultural heritage».

Therefore, the thesis of the Municipality of Mantua would not be shareable, according to which the regulation in question would fall within the residual legislative competence of the regions pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 117 of the Constitution or within the concurrent competence in the matter of «enhancement of cultural and environmental heritage and promotion and organisation of cultural activities», referred to in the third paragraph of the same Article 117.

The referring court observes on this point that, on the one hand, «the sanctioning apparatus provided for a certain sector of the legal system, far from constituting a matter in itself, rather belongs to the substantive regulation the observance of which it intends to ensure», with the consequence that the definition of the sanctioning regime pertains to the same subject «within whose sphere of competence falls the regulation the non-observance of which constitutes the sanctionable act» (Judgment No. 148 of 2018 is cited; previous Judgments No. 90 of 2013, No. 240 of 2007, No. 384 of 2005 and No. 12 of 2004 are also referred to). As it is not an autonomous matter, this regime could not «fall within the provision of the fourth paragraph of Article 117 of the Constitution and therefore be attributed residually to the legislative power of the Regions».

On the other hand, the protection of the environment and landscape and their enhancement would be «two functions, certainly intersecting, but diversified one from the other», the former aiming at the conservation of a complex and unitary asset and the latter at improving its function and knowledge.

According to the referring court, the rules referred to in Part Three of the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape would pursue «the purposes of conservation of landscape heritage, as it expressly prohibit[s] any intervention that destroys or prejudices them», and the sanctions (both restorative and pecuniary) provided for the violation of the same rules would be preordained to the same purpose of protection, as they are aimed at discouraging interventions in landscape-protected areas before the administrative authority has ruled on the relevant projects.

Therefore, as the regulation of the sanctions for the violation of Article 146 of the Code of Cultural Heritage falls within the exclusive legislative power of the State, the regions would be prevented from introducing further or different sanctions with respect to those contained in state law, so that Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005, which contains different sanctioning provisions in an area reserved for the exclusive legislative competence of the State, would violate Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution.

2.– Cartiere Villa Lagarina spa appeared in the proceedings on September 18, 2023, requesting the acceptance of the question on the basis of the same reasons put forward by the referring court.

According to the private party, moreover, the quantification of the sanction introduced by the contested regional law would be «completely extraneous» to the principles contained in the state law and «above all completely unrelated to any relationship with the injured interest and with the purpose pursued by Articles 146 and 167 of Legislative Decree No. 42/2004». It would therefore violate the state regulation, in that, disregarding an expert appraisal of the profit, it would introduce «a flat-rate quantification that is completely disproportionate and devoid of any relationship with the concept of “profit”».

3.– The Region of Lombardy intervened in the proceedings on September 7, 2023, requesting that the question be declared inadmissible or unfounded.

3.1.– Preliminarily, the question would be inadmissible due to its irrelevance in the definition of the proceedings a quo, which would only concern the quantification of the administrative sanction, and «that well c[ould] find a solution independently of the application of the regional law».

In particular, according to the regional defence, the referring court would not have provided suitable elements to reconstruct either the administrative procedure initiated by the Municipality of Mantua to calculate the quantum due by the appellant company for the illegal works subject to post-hoc assessment, nor the technical assessment at the basis of the expert appraisal carried out by the company's consultant, limiting itself to «indicating the different criteria adopted and the outcomes of the application of these criteria reached in the respective assessments» and not disclosing the elements at the basis of the different quantifications.

Furthermore, the referring court would not have attempted a constitutionally oriented interpretation of the contested provision. The statement according to which the profit obtained is «as a rule lower than 80% of the construction cost» would leave «a margin of indeterminacy, which shows how the verification of the relevance took place in the abstract and without consideration of the specific case and of the possibility of interpreting the rule in a constitutionally oriented manner».

3.2.– On the merits, the Region recalls the content of paragraph 5, third period, of Article 167 of the Code of Cultural Heritage and underlines that Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005 – in the original version, which did not contain the provisions subject to challenge – would have been adopted to overcome the application difficulties that arose in relation to illegal works that do not cause any damage and from which no profit derives for the transgressor (the example of the «shifting of a window already provided for, and authorized, to another position» is made).

Therefore, the regional rule would not have overlapped with the state rule, but would have filled a gap that nullified its application, completing it.

Subsequently, as seen, Article 27 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 17 of 2018 redefined the parameters for the calculation of the landscape sanction, introducing into Article 83 an «innovation linked only to quantification».

Not even the Decree of the Minister for Cultural and Environmental Heritage of September 26, 1997 (cited by the judge a quo), containing the «Determination of parameters and methods for the qualification of compensation for damages for illegal works carried out in areas subject to restriction», would be valid to fill the alleged regulatory gap noted above, since, regardless of the doubts about its effectiveness, it indicates criteria linked to the cadastral value, without «a reference applicable in every case».

These considerations would demonstrate that the referral order proceeds from «a fundamental error», considering that the violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution is constituted by «any provision that is not identical, in its text, to the state law».

The Region of Lombardy then reports that other regions have also intervened to fill the same gap in state law, and refers to Regional Law of Piedmont No. 20 of April 3, 1989 (Rules on the Protection of Cultural, Environmental and Landscape Heritage), which provides, in Article 16, for the payment of a sanction equal to one hundred percent of the value of the illegal works and in any case a sanction equal to a predetermined legal minimum, in addition to the restoration to the previous state.

3.2.1.– With regard to the ascribability of the regulation of the sanctioning power for the protection of the landscape to the exclusive state legislative competence referred to in Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution, the jurisprudence of this Court would not exclude the possibility for the regional legislator to assume among its purposes also the purposes of protection of the landscape heritage, if such requirements raise the level of environmental protection provided for by the state legislator.

This hypothesis would occur in the present proceedings, as, according to the Region, the contested Article 83 would not be «in contradiction» with the exclusive legislative power of the State, nor would it reduce the levels of environmental protection.

The Region also argues that the same Article 83, in providing for the criterion for determining the sanction in the absence of environmental damage, could be ascribed to the concurrent legislative competence in the matter of «enhancement of cultural and environmental heritage», referred to in Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution, as it would not conflict with the state function of landscape protection, but would intend «to sanction those cases in which the asset is not compromised, but there has still been an alteration».

These hypotheses would fall within the scope of the management of cultural and environmental heritage, to be kept distinct from the function of protection reserved to the State and to be ascribed to that of enhancement of the same assets: in short, «[o]nce the level of protection provided for by state legislation has been ensured», the sanction in question would constitute «a limit to enjoyment, through a more stringent protection of the asset».

The same considerations referred to the lack of environmental damage would be valid to bring the contested rule also within the concurrent legislative power in the matter of «governance of the territory», attributed to the regions by the same Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution.

This power would include «everything that relates to the use of the territory and the localization of plants or activities» and, connecting «transversally» to the matter of environmental protection, could be exercised without violating the exclusive legislative competence of the State. The latter should be limited to the aspects of environmental protection law that, by their nature, require a unitary regulation: consequently, the contested regional rule, not interfering with the identification of protected assets and operating in an «additional» function to state legislation, would have quantified the sanction for the hypothesis of landscape abuses not causing environmental damage, providing for a «parameter-limit» aimed at making the regulation more complete, «with a view to defending the territory».

4.– Cartiere Villa Lagarina spa filed an illustrative brief on December 20, 2023.

With regard to the plea of inadmissibility raised by the regional defence, the company observes that the judge a quo would have duly reasoned on the relevance of the question, where he states that the sanction was imposed exclusively considering the criterion of the theoretical cost of the illegal works, provided for by Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005, and that the acceptance of the question would determine the illegitimacy of the measure challenged in the main proceedings.

With regard to the merits, the private party observes that the state regulatory framework of reference, consisting of Articles 146 and 167 of the Code of Cultural Heritage, regulates a case characterized by the violation of an obligation (consisting in the lack of prior landscape authorization) and by the related pecuniary administrative sanction. The latter, moreover, appears «intimately correlated» to the institution of the post-hoc assessment of landscape compatibility, which produces a “remedial” effect on the abuse and, at the same time, carries out a function aimed at simplifying and making administrative action more efficient.

In this context, the exclusive legislative power of the State to determine the pecuniary administrative sanction referred to in Article 167, paragraph 5, of the Code of Cultural Heritage would be clear, in the light of the constitutional jurisprudence, referred to by the referring court, on the attribution of the sanctioning regulation to the same subject within whose sphere of competence falls the regulation the non-observance of which constitutes the sanctionable act. Consequently, since it is a sanction imposed for non-observance of rules set to protect the landscape, such as those relating to the issuance of landscape authorization, the exclusive legislative competence would belong to the State pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution.

Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005 would have an innovative scope with respect to the state regulation, introducing a criterion completely unrelated to the notion of «profit» of the transgressor. Far from constituting a legitimate integration of the state regulation, as the Region claims, the contested rule would be «potentially disruptive with respect to the homogeneous and unitary application» of the precepts referred to in Article 167 of the Code of Cultural Heritage. It would entail, in fact, an evident risk of imbalances, considering that in other regions the (much more favourable) criterion for quantifying profit provided for by Ministerial Decree of September 26, 1997, «equal, as a rule, to three percent of the cadastral value», is generally adopted. This difference in treatment would also discourage the use of the institution of assessment of landscape compatibility and, consequently, also prejudice its deflationary function, with this assessment determining the extinction of the crime provided for by Article 181 of the Code of Cultural Heritage.

Nor would the contested regional rule be attributable to the matters of enhancement of cultural heritage and governance of the territory, for the reasons set out in the referral order.

Considered in law

1.– The Regional Administrative Tribunal of Lombardy, detached section of Brescia, first section, doubts the constitutional legitimacy of Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005, with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution, in relation to Articles 146 and 167, paragraph 5, of the Code of Cultural Heritage.

The contested provision states that «[t]he application of the pecuniary sanction, provided for by Article 167 of Legislative Decree No. 42/2004, as an alternative to restoration to the previous state, is mandatory also in the event of the absence of environmental damage and, in this case, it must be quantified in relation to the profit obtained and, in any case, in an amount not less than eighty percent of the theoretical cost of carrying out the illegal works and/or work, deducible from the relevant bill of quantities and the unit prices resulting from the price lists of the Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Crafts and Agriculture of the province, in any case, with a minimum sanction of five hundred euros».

In the proceedings a quo, the measure with which the Municipality of Mantua, after ascertaining the landscape compatibility of works carried out without authorization in an industrial complex located in an area partially subject to landscape restrictions, imposed on the transgressor (Cartiere Villa Lagarina spa) the pecuniary sanction provided for in Article 167, paragraph 5, of the Code of Cultural Heritage, is being challenged. The amount of the sanction, in the absence of environmental damage, was measured at eighty percent of the theoretical cost of construction of the illegal works, following an expert appraisal, applying the criterion introduced by Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005.

The question of constitutional legitimacy concerns the part of the regional provision that establishes the measure of the sanction, according to the methods indicated by the same provision, with the provision of a mandatory minimum of five hundred euros.

The judge a quo considers that the regional legislator, by adopting a provision that differs from that established by Article 167 of the Code of Cultural Heritage, has invaded the legislative competence in the matter of «protection of the environment, ecosystem and cultural heritage», attributed exclusively to the State by Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution.

In his opinion, the rules referred to in Part Three of the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, within which the regulation of the landscape authorization referred to in Article 146 of the same code is contained, pursue the purposes of conservation of landscape assets, for the achievement of which the sanctions – both restorative and pecuniary – provided for by Article 167 of the Code of Cultural Heritage, as they are aimed at discouraging interventions carried out in landscape-protected areas before the administrative authority has ruled on the relevant projects, would also be preordained.

Therefore, since the regulation of the sanctions for the violation of the aforementioned Article 146 of the Code of Cultural Heritage falls within the exclusive legislative power of the State, the regions would be prevented from introducing further or different sanctions, even only in the quantum, with respect to those established by the state law.

2.– Preliminarily, it must first of all be excluded that the fact that this Court, with order No. 22 of 2023, defined an identical incidental question with a pronouncement of inadmissibility, raised by the same referring court during similar proceedings, pending between the same parties, affects the admissibility of the question.

2.1.– In that pronouncement, inadmissibility was declared because «the judge a quo […] already decided the two sole grounds of appeal, rejecting them both, with the consequence that, at the time of the referral of the question, its potestas iudicandi had already been exhausted»: hence the lack of relevance, «as there is no longer any space for decision on the part of the referring court, within which area alone could the rule, the constitutional legitimacy of which the same judge doubts, be applied».

Such a pronouncement, of a procedural nature, does not preclude the re-proposition of the question in different proceedings, as it does not entail any impediment effect with respect to subsequent challenges, also similar, relating to the same rule (Judgment No. 99 of 2017).

In the present proceedings a quo, in fact, the referring court has not exhausted its potestas iudicandi, as, after ascertaining the unfounded nature of the first two grounds of appeal, it must still decide on the third, with which the illegitimacy of the challenged measure is derived from the (asserted) constitutional illegitimacy of its normative basis.

From this point of view, therefore, the question is admissible.

2.2.– The Region of Lombardy has claimed a defect of relevance on multiple profiles. In the first place, because in the proceedings a quo there is a dispute concerning the quantification of the administrative sanction, a theme that «well c[ould] find a solution independently of the application of the regional law».

This claim is unfounded. This assertive statement does not consider that, as reported by the referring court, the measure challenged in the proceedings a quo determined the amount of the sanction exclusively on the basis of the criterion provided for by Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005 (id est, «in an amount not less than eighty percent of the theoretical cost of carrying out the illegal works and/or work»), on the assumption of the absence of environmental damage. Consequently, it is not clear how the definition of the dispute on the quantum could disregard the application of the contested regional rule.

Secondly, according to the regional defence, the referring court would not have provided suitable elements to reconstruct either the administrative procedure initiated by the Municipality of Mantua to calculate the sanction, nor the technical assessment at the basis of the expert appraisal «carried out by the company's consultant», limiting itself to «indicating the different criteria adopted and the outcomes of the application of these criteria reached in the respective assessments», without disclosing the elements at the basis of the «different quantifications». Furthermore, the referring court would have verified the relevance in the abstract, limiting itself to stating that the profit obtained is «as a rule lower than 80% of the construction cost», without even considering the possibility of interpreting the rule in a constitutionally oriented manner.

It must be stated that with these arguments, the Region contests, rather, a defect of reasoning on relevance, which does not exist.

The shortcomings complained of, moreover not all of which are easy to understand (especially where the intervening party refers to a party appraisal and to not better specified «different quantifications»), are not in any case suitable to demonstrate the lack of the minimum requirements for admissibility of the question.

Indeed, the Regional Administrative Tribunal reasons in a not implausible way on the applicability of the contested rule in the proceedings a quo. The referral order contains clear references to the assessment of landscape compatibility and to the consequent sanctioning measure adopted pursuant to Article 167 of the Code of Cultural Heritage, specifying that the sanction was determined on the basis of the criterion introduced by Article 83 of Regional Law of Lombardy No. 12 of 2005, according to which, in the absence of environmental damage, the sanction is in any case quantified to the minimum extent of eighty percent of the theoretical cost of carrying out the illegal works, following an expert appraisal.

Therefore, the existing link between the contested rule and the measure submitted to the cognizance of the referring court is exhaustively illustrated, the latter, far from having examined the relevance in the abstract, verified how,