JUDGMENT NO. 53

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, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI,

has delivered the following

JUDGMENT

in the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 80 of the Law of the Valle d’Aosta Region of 13 February 2013, No. 3 (Provisions regarding housing policies), initiated by the Ordinary Court of Turin, First Civil Division, in the proceedings pending between the Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (ASGI) Aps, A. D.A. and A. M., and the Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste, by order of 17 April 2023, registered under No. 102 of the 2023 Ordinance Register and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 34, first special series, of the year 2023.

Having examined the acts of constitution of the Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste and of ASGI;

Having heard Judge Rapporteur Emanuela Navarretta at the public hearing of 20 February 2024;

Having heard Attorneys Alberto Guariso for ASGI and Giuseppe Franco Ferrari for the Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste;

Resolved in the council chamber of 20 February 2024.

Facts of the Case

1.– By order indicated in the preamble (reg. ord. No. 102 of 2023), the Ordinary Court of Turin, First Civil Division, raised, in reference to Article 3 of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 80 of the Law of the Valle d’Aosta Region of 13 February 2013, No. 3 (Provisions regarding housing policies), insofar as it provides, for the purposes of access to subsidized loans for the recovery of buildings, the requirement of Italian citizenship or that of one of the countries of the European Union and the requirement of residence protracted for at least eight years in the Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste.

2.– Regarding the facts, the referring court reports that the questions of constitutional legitimacy originate from an anti-discrimination lawsuit, pursuant to Article 28 of Legislative Decree No. 150 of 1 September 2011 (Supplementary provisions to the Code of Civil Procedure on the reduction and simplification of civil proceedings, pursuant to Article 54 of Law No. 69 of 18 June 2009), introduced by the Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (ASGI) aps, by A. D.A. and by A. M.

2.1.– In this lawsuit, the applicants requested the ascertainment of the discriminatory nature of the resolution of the Council of the Valle d’Aosta Region of 9 May 2022, No. 531, with which the Region approved, in implementation of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013, the implementing provisions concerning the granting of subsidized loans both for first homes and for the recovery of buildings, using the regional revolving fund established at the regional financial company Finaosta spa.

With reference to the granting of subsidized loans for the purchase, construction, or recovery of the first home, the aforementioned resolution provided as an access requirement the «length of residence in the Region [...] of at least five years, even non-consecutive» – Article 12, paragraph 1, letter c, of Annex A to the aforementioned resolution, containing «Implementing provisions for the granting of loans referred to in Regional Law No. 3 of 13 February 2013 (provisions regarding housing policies), Title IV, Chapter II» – a criterion that is not found in Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013.

With regard to the disbursement of subsidized loans for the recovery of buildings, the same resolution of the Regional Council, in Article 12 of Annex B, containing «Implementing provisions for the granting of loans referred to in Regional Law No. 3 of 13 February 2013 (provisions regarding housing policies), Title IV, Chapter III», conditioned access both to Italian citizenship or that of one of the countries of the European Union, and to the «length of residence in the Valle d’Aosta Region "for at least eight years”», reproducing what was already established by Article 80 of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013.

2.2.– Due to the perceived discriminatory, direct and indirect, nature of the requirements requested to access the two types of subsidized loans, the applicants requested the judge a quo «to adopt the [...] measures suitable to remove the effects of discrimination, ordering the Valle d’Aosta Region to remove the clauses that introduced the discriminatory requirements [...] and to reopen the call for applications, admitting applicants without these requirements on equal terms with other applicants, setting [...] the sum of €100.00 for each day of delay in the fulfillment of these obligations»; to condemn the Region to compensate ASGI for «the non-pecuniary and reputational damage resulting from the discriminatory conduct»; to condemn the Region to compensate the other applicants for the damage resulting from the delay in the recognition of the benefit (consisting of the subsidized loan for the purchase of the first home); to order the publication of the decision «on the home page of the institution's website for a minimum of 30 days and/or on one or more national newspapers».

2.3.– The judge a quo reports, below, having rejected a preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction, raised by the defendant Region in the main proceeding, given that the jurisdiction of the ordinary court would be supported not only by the constitutional and legitimacy jurisprudence (the judgment of this Court No. 44 of 2020, and the pronouncements of the Court of Cassation, First Civil Division, order of 13 February 2021, No. 3842 and joint civil divisions, order of 30 March 2011, No. 7186), but also by precise normative indices, such as Article 44, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 286 of 25 July 1998 (Consolidated text of the provisions concerning the regulation of immigration and rules on the condition of foreigners) and Article 28, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2011.

Furthermore, the referring court specifies that it has, instead, accepted the preliminary objection of territorial incompetence raised by the defendant party, regarding the claims formulated by the applicants A. D.A. and A. M., and has therefore defined the main proceedings concerning the relations between the latter and the defendant Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste.

3.– In the subsequent examination of the claims formulated by ASGI, the Court of Turin has, first of all, ascertained «the discriminatory nature of the conduct held by the Valle d’Aosta Region, consisting of having issued resolution No. 531 of 9/05/2022, in the part in which, in Annex A to Article 12, letter C, [it] provided for the requirement of five-year residence as a condition for accessing subsidized loans aimed at the purchase, construction or recovery of the first home».

With regard, instead, to the conditions of access to subsidized loans for the recovery of buildings, the referring court noted that both the requirement of Italian or European citizenship and that of residence in the Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste for at least eight years, provided for, respectively, in paragraph 1 and in paragraph 1, letter a), of Article 12 of Annex B to the resolution of the Regional Council, reproduce what is already provided for in paragraph 1 and paragraph 1, letter a), of Article 80 of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2023.

Consequently, the judge a quo deemed it necessary to submit to constitutional scrutiny «this primary source», in reference to Article 3 of the Constitution, in the part that contemplates the two aforementioned requirements for access to the facilitation.

4.– Regarding the relevance, the referring court found that the main proceedings cannot be defined independently of the resolution of the issues of constitutional legitimacy of Article 80 of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2023, as this provision would constitute «the indispensable normative prerequisite of Article 12 of Annex B to the resolution of the Regional Council of the Valle d’Aosta No. 531 of 9/5/2022, in respect of which the applicant association has promoted the [...] collective action (ex Article 5 of Legislative Decree 215/2003)». The decision concerning the collective discrimination contested by the applicant association would thus depend on the examination of the issues.

On the other hand, the referring court believes that it is not possible to proceed with the non-application of the contested provisions due to conflict with Union law, «as the provisions of the EU directives cited by the applicants cannot be recognized as having direct effect (so-called self-executing)». Similarly, the judge a quo does not consider a constitutionally compliant interpretation of the aforementioned provisions to be feasible, «given the clear letter of Article 80 R.L.».

5.– As for the non-manifest unfoundedness, the Court of Turin notes how the criteria for identifying the beneficiaries of public services must still respond to the principle of reasonableness, «even when it does not concern inviolable human rights (as in the present case)», «as arbitrary elements of distinction cannot be introduced into the normative fabric».

In particular, according to the judge a quo, given that the ratio of the regional benefit in question in the main case would be to «facilitate building recovery in certain areas of the regional territory», there would be «no reasonable correlation between [this] ratio [...] and the requirements of citizenship (Italian or EU) and of residence protracted for at least eight years».

5.1.– Specifically, the Court of Turin considers the exclusion of «non-EU foreigners» from the subsidized loan to be completely arbitrary and recalls, in this regard, the judgment No. 432 of 2005 of this Court, which deemed unreasonable the exclusion of foreign citizens from a public service not related to the protection of fundamental rights, a service consisting of the gratuitousness of the public transport contract recognized in favor of certain categories of users.

5.2.– Equally unreasonable is the requirement of residence protracted for at least eight years, as the referring court does not see any connection «between the length of residence in the regional territory and the recovery of buildings in certain areas».

According to the judge a quo, the requirement of prolonged residence could not in itself be an indication of a high probability of stability in a territorial area, «an objective that can be pursued not so much by referring to past conditions, but rather by referring to indices of probability of permanence in the future». The referring court, referring to the judgment of this Court No. 107 of 2018, observes that the requirement of protracted residence integrates «a condition that may in practice prevent a particular subject from accessing public services both in the current region of residence and in that of origin».

6.– By deed filed on 11 September 2023, the Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste constituted itself in the proceedings, objecting the inadmissibility and unfoundedness of the questions raised.

6.1.– With reference to the question of constitutional legitimacy concerning the requirement of residence protracted for at least eight years in the regional territory, the defense of the Region first observed that the requirement is alternative to that contemplated by Article 80, paragraph 1, letter b), of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013, namely the ownership of the property lasting for at least fifteen years. This would reveal the fallacy of the argument on which the referral order is based, because the benefit would also be usable by those who do not reside in the Region.

6.1.1.– The Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste has therefore raised a dual procedural objection.

On the one hand, the regional defense has argued the lack of relevance, given that the issue would concern an alleged indirect discrimination against foreigners linked to the requirement of protracted residence, when the condition contemplated by letter b) of the same Article 80, neglected by the referring court, would still allow the non-resident to access the benefit.

On the other hand, the obliteration of the alternative requirement of prolonged ownership of the property would make the reasoning on the non-manifest unfoundedness inadequate, with both the reconstruction of the ratio of the contested provision and the assessment of the reasonableness of the requirements with respect to the nature of the benefit being «incomplete and deficient».

6.1.2.– On the merits, the Region believes that the requirement provided for by the contested provision is in no way discriminatory, because the limitation linked to residence would also apply to Italian citizens.

Furthermore, access to the benefit would still be allowed by virtue of the existence of the aforementioned alternative requirement of ownership protracted for at least fifteen years.

Finally, the issue would be unfounded, as it would not concern «measures of an assistance nature, aimed at filling a need of a fragile part of the population or at responding to essential needs of the individual», but would be «an incentive to investments by those who are already in possession of resources» and would serve to «promote the recovery of centers and inhabited areas of historical and environmental interest». So framed the measure, according to the regional defense, it would be allowed, in line with constitutional jurisprudence, «to favor, within the limits of non-manifest unreasonableness, its residents, also in relation to the contribution that they have made to the progress of the community by operating there for a not inconsiderable period of time» (the judgment No. 222 of 2013 is cited). Moreover, it would be legitimate to introduce conditions aimed at «discouraging the use of occasional and merely opportunistic residences».

In summary, according to the regional defense, «the choice to exclude, for example, foreigners legally residing, but still lacking a consolidated rooting in the territory given either by multi-year residence or by multi-year real estate ownership» could not be deemed «exorbitant with respect to the boundaries of reasonableness».

6.2.– With regard to the question of constitutional legitimacy concerning the requirement of Italian citizenship or that of one of the countries of the European Union, the Region objects the inadmissibility for lack of reasoning and, in any case, on the merits, the unfoundedness.

The regional defense recalls, in this regard, the judgment No. 50 of 2019 of this Court, with which it was stated that «equality between Italian (and European) citizens and foreigners should be guaranteed only for services aimed at satisfying a primary need of the individual, "which is configured as an inviolable right”», and this would not be the case of the measure in question.

Furthermore, underlying the provision would be the need to «guarantee FINAOSTA S.p.A., i.e., the lender of the financing, the possibility of conducting the necessary investigations on the creditworthiness of the applicant», which would be more difficult to do with respect to non-European citizens, just as it would be less easy to recover the debt in case of arrears. The requirement, therefore, would not be an unreasonable cause for exclusion from the benefit. In the opinion of the regional defense, to opine otherwise would mean supporting «the substantial irrelevance of the status of citizenship, even in the face of expectations not corresponding to primary needs or fundamental rights, opting for a sort of global citizenship».

7.– By deed filed on 11 September 2023, ASGI, the applicant party in the main proceedings, constituted itself in the proceedings, adhering to the arguments on which the referral order is based.

The party expresses some «perplexity» regarding the referring court's statement, where it believes «it cannot resolve the doubt of constitutionality "through the non-application of the regional law provision due to conflict with directly applicable EU regulations [...]”» and, in any case, complains that no questions of constitutional legitimacy have also been raised with reference to Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

Below, ASGI focuses on the ratio of the measures in question and adheres to the criticisms made by the judge a quo both with regard to the requirement of citizenship and with regard to the criterion of residence protracted for at least eight years, in order to access the subsidized loan for the recovery of buildings.

8.– On 29 January 2024, the defendant in the main proceedings filed a supplementary brief, in which it insisted on the reasons for inadmissibility for lack of relevance, with arguments similar to those set out in the deed of constitution.

On the merits, it reiterated the objections of unfoundedness of the questions raised. In particular, with regard to the criticism concerning the requirement of residence for at least eight years, as an alternative to ownership for at least fifteen years, it argued the «more than reasonable» nature of the «precedence» given, in accessing the benefit, to those who have contributed «to the payment of taxes and/or duties», feeding with «their own resources [...] the regional finances». The subsidized loan for the recovery of buildings would, in fact, represent a form «of redistribution among taxpayers of the resources that they have contributed over the years to flow into the regional budget».

The regional defense then returns to emphasize the non-assistance nature of the benefit both with reference to the requirement of protracted residence, which would make the case law cited by the referring court irrelevant, and with regard to the criterion of citizenship. The legislator, therefore, would enjoy a «certain margin of discretion in setting the requirements for accessing the measure».

9.– On 30 January 2024, the party also filed a supplementary brief, referring to what was stated in the deed of constitution in the proceedings.

In particular, ASGI reiterated that the extraneousness of public services to primary or essential needs of the person does not exempt the Region from adhering to the «principle of "reasonable correlation”» between the requirements requested for access to the measure and the «public purpose» underlying the provision, a connection that would be lacking both with regard to the criterion of protracted residence and with respect to that of Italian citizenship or that of one of the EU countries.

Moreover, in response to the arguments spent by the defendant regarding the lack of relevance of the issue concerning protracted residence, the defense of the party notes that the acceptance of the issue, «[f]ar from "leaving the regulatory framework unchanged”», would, on the contrary, allow access to the service to «residents in the Region, who own the property to be renovated», as well as to «those who, even if not residents in the Region, have owned said property for at least 15 years».

On the merits, the party insists on the manifestly unreasonable nature that would emerge from the total lack of correlation between the purpose of the services and the access requirements. In particular, with reference to the citizenship requirement, the defense of ASGI replies to the arguments of the regional defense, relating to the «greater difficulty in conducting investigations on the adequacy of the guarantees issued» by foreign beneficiaries, observing that the control of guarantees is carried out during the disbursement phase, so it is one thing to refuse disbursement ex post, and another thing is to «presume ex ante» that the non-Italian or non-European debtor is less solvent or less reliable.

10.– At the hearing of 20 February 2024, the regional defense and the party insisted on the acceptance of the conclusions drawn in the defensive briefs.

Reasons for the Decision

1.– By order indicated in the preamble (reg. ord. No. 102 of 2023), the Court of Turin, First Civil Division, raised, in reference to Article 3 of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 80 of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013, insofar as it provides, for the purposes of access to subsidized loans for the recovery of buildings, the requirement of Italian citizenship or that of one of the countries of the European Union and the requirement of residence protracted for at least eight years in the Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste.

1.1.– Regarding the procedure, the referring court believes that the main proceedings cannot be defined independently of the resolution of the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised with regard to Article 80 of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2023, as this provision would constitute «the indispensable normative prerequisite of Article 12 of Annex B to the resolution of the Regional Council of Valle d’Aosta No. 531 of 9/05/2022, in respect of which the applicant association has promoted the [...] collective action (ex Article 5, Legislative Decree 215/2003)».

The judge a quo also maintains that it is not possible to proceed with the non-application of the contested provisions due to conflict with the law of the European Union and that a constitutionally compliant interpretation of Article 80 of the aforementioned regional law is not feasible, given its clear literal tenor.

1.2.– On the merits, the Court of Turin sees a conflict between the criteria for accessing subsidized loans, provided for, respectively, in paragraph 1 and in paragraph 1, letter a), of Article 80 of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013, and Article 3 of the Constitution, as these requirements would not be correlated to the ratio underlying the facilitation.

The referring court refers to the jurisprudence of this Court to highlight that the conditions dictated to identify the beneficiaries of public services should «respond to the principle of reasonableness [...] even when it does not concern inviolable human rights (as in the present case)», «as arbitrary elements of distinction cannot be introduced into the normative fabric».

Both the exclusion of «non-EU foreigners» and that of those who do not have a residence protracted for at least eight years would not present «any reasonable correlation [with] the recovery of buildings in certain areas of the regional territory».

Therefore, the referring court focuses its criticisms on both criteria, identifying two autonomous and independent issues which, although motivated by reasons that partly overlap, must be addressed separately.

2.– With reference to the issue concerning the requirement of residence protracted for at least eight years, the regional defense objects the inadmissibility for lack of relevance and for inadequate reasoning of the non-manifest unfoundedness.

The referring court would have omitted to consider, in the reconstruction of the regulatory framework, that access to the facilitation is allowed, as an alternative to the occurrence of prolonged residence, to those who own the property for at least fifteen years, according to what is established by Article 80, paragraph 1, letter b), of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013. Consequently, in the opinion of the Region, a possible judgment of acceptance «would not be able to have any influence on the main proceedings», «nor to cause a change in the regulatory framework of reference assumed by the judge a quo».

3.– The objection of lack of relevance is not founded.

The criterion of residence protracted for at least eight years and that of ownership lasting for at least fifteen years are posed as alternative requirements, which allow access to the facilitation on the basis of autonomous and distinct conditions.

The possible acceptance of the issue concerning the first alternative criterion would have a certain influence on the main proceedings, as it would allow access to the subsidized loan in the presence of mere ownership combined with residence, without the latter having to be prolonged and without the different prerequisites indicated by Article 80, paragraph 1, letter b), of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013, having to occur.

Ownership associated with residence would therefore remain an alternative to mere ownership which, according to the aforementioned letter b), must last for at least fifteen years.

4.– Likewise, not founded is the objection of inadequate reasoning of the non-manifest unfoundedness that the regional defense opposes to the criticism concerning the requirement of residence protracted for at least eight years.

The arguments put forward by the referring court in support of the perceived unreasonableness of this requirement are, in fact, sufficient to represent the reasons for the criticism, regardless of the failure to refer to its alternative nature with respect to the criterion of prolonged ownership.

This omission, therefore, does not have an impact on the procedure, but rather can be reflected on the merits.

5.– Proceeding to examine the merits of the questions raised by the referring court, it is appropriate, as a preliminary matter, to reconstruct the ratio of the regulation concerning the disbursement of loans at subsidized costs for the «recovery of centers and inhabited areas of historical and environmental interest» (Article 1, paragraph 1, letter d, of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013).

It is, in fact, from the connection between the ratio of this regulation and the criteria for accessing the subsidized loan that the criticisms made in reference to Article 3 of the Constitution depend.

5.1.– Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013 provides for a complex of interventions that pursue two macro objectives.

A first group of instruments, not subject to criticisms in today's questions, aims to facilitate access to the right to housing for people who are in need (Articles 8, 9 and 10 of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013). The public interest coincides, in this case, with the right of individuals to see their housing needs met, through a gradation of solutions that, depending on the requirements possessed, related to the extent of the economic hardship, range from public or subsidized residential construction (Articles 8 and 9 of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013) to subsidized loans for the purchase of the first home (Article 10 and Chapter II of Title IV of the aforementioned regional law).

A second type of intervention – the one to which the contested provisions are ascribed – tends instead to achieve different public purposes that do not relate to the condition of need of people, but which focus on the state in which res and places are: the objective is to redevelop buildings and revitalize centers and inhabited areas.

To this end, Article 11 of Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013 establishes, in paragraph 1, that «[t]he Region, to promote the recovery of existing building stock, the elimination of building degradation and the redevelopment and revitalization of the urban fabric, provides for the granting of loans at subsidized rates for interventions for the recovery of buildings located in centers and inhabited areas limited to territorial areas of type A, as defined by Article 22, paragraph 1, letter a), of Regional Law No. 11 of 6 April 1998 (Urban planning and territorial planning regulations of the Valle d’Aosta)».

More precisely, Article 79 of the aforementioned regional law provides (at the opening of Chapter III of Title IV) that the «Region grants subsidized loans for the recovery of buildings located in centers and inhabited areas limited to areas A and recovery areas identified within the framework of the general municipal regulatory plan (PRG). Those identified by the Region or by the mountain communities with similar criteria in the urban planning instruments within their competence are assimilated to these areas for the purposes of this Chapter» (paragraph 1). «Loans are also granted for the recovery of buildings located outside the territorial areas referred to in paragraph 1, provided they are of historical, artistic or environmental interest. The existence of this interest must emerge from the PRG» (paragraph 2).

5.2.– The facilitation provided by Regional Law of Valle d’Aosta No. 3 of 2013 in the disbursement of loans for the redevelopment of buildings thus satisfies two specific public interests, which are added to the one aimed at encouraging building activity on the territory, underlying all the interventions provided for in Title IV of the regional law under examination, concerning the «[r]evolution funds for the recovery of the construction industry».

The first interest concerns the «recovery of existing building stock [and the] elimination of building degradation» (Article 11, paragraph 1) and is ensured thanks to the nature of a purpose loan of the contract, which provides a reduced cost for financing compared to that of the market, insofar as the borrowed sum is intended for the type of intervention provided by regional law. To this interest is associated the obligation to respect a particular timeframe (Article 86, paragraph 1), so that, if the recovery of the buildings is not completed «within forty-eight months from the date of stipulation of the preliminary loan contract, the manager of the competent structure orders, by his own provision, the revocation of the sums not yet disbursed and the borrower, within fifty-four months from the date of stipulation of the preliminary loan contract, may, alternatively, provide: a) for the reimbursement of the sums disbursed, increased by the legal interest rate in force at the time of early termination and accrued from the date of the last installment of interest paid; b) for the stipulation of the definitive loan contract for a maximum amount corresponding to the sums disbursed» (Article 86, paragraph 6).

Secondly, the further public interest pursued by the facilitation of the loan intended for the recovery of buildings is that of favoring «the redevelopment and revitalization of the urban fabric» (Article 11, paragraph 1). For this reason, the subsidized rate is granted only to natural persons who use the financing to recover buildings intended for permanent or main housing or for temporary housing, so much so that the change in the intended use and even the alienation by act inter vivos constitute a violation of the regulations and entail the obligation to repay the loan early, if the violation occurs during the pre-amortization period, as well as the payment of a penalty, if it occurs in the ten years following.

5.3.– As for the instrument used by the Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste to pursue the aforementioned purposes, it consists of the offer, through a regional financial company (Finaosta spa), of loan contracts at reduced costs, the content of which is mainly regulated by the same regional law. In particular, this provides that subsidized loans are disbursed by Finaosta spa, which manages a revolving fund and which assumes, by agreement, the risk of financing (Article 70 of the aforementioned regional law).

The resources of the fund are initially fed by an appropriation that derives from