ORDINANCE No. 127
YEAR 2024
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
composed of:
President: Augusto Antonio BARBERA;
Judges: 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 rendered the following
ORDINANCE
in the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 176, paragraphs 11 and 21, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 30 April 1992 (New Highway Code), referred by the Justice of the Peace of Nola, Section One, in the proceedings between Miranda Angelo srl and the Prefecture – Territorial Government Office of Naples, by ordinance of 17 February 2023, registered at No. 30 of the register of ordinances 2024 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 11, first special series, of the year 2024.
Having considered the intervention of the President of the Council of Ministers;
having heard, at the Chamber of Council of 18 June 2024, the Reporting Judge Giulio Prosperetti;
having deliberated at the Chamber of Council of 18 June 2024.
Considering that, by ordinance of 17 February 2023 (Reg. Ord. No. 30 of 2024), the Justice of the Peace of Nola, Section One, raised, with reference to Articles 3 and 42, second paragraph, of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 176, paragraphs 11 and 21, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 30 April 1992 (New Highway Code);
that the referring court reports that it must rule on the appeal filed by Miranda Angelo srl against the notice issued for the violation of the aforementioned provisions of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 1992;
that, according to the Justice of the Peace of Nola, the aforementioned provisions – in not providing for notification by registered letter or PEC to the company owning the vehicle of the "failure to pay with the invitation to pay nor the communication of the report of unpaid toll with the unpaid amount" – would preclude "the possibility of paying the administrative penalty within 5 days with a 30% discount";
that, furthermore, in the opinion of the referring court, the ascertainment of the alleged violation was carried out "by an employee of the highway concessionaire with a clear interest and not by a public official";
that, finally, according to the referring court, "the pecuniary penalty with the deduction of points on the driving license is disproportionate to the non-payment of a small sum";
that, alongside the alleged conflict with Article 3 of the Constitution, it is argued that the challenged provisions also violate Article 42, second paragraph, of the Constitution;
that the President of the Council of Ministers intervened in the proceedings, represented and defended by the Attorney General of the State, who concluded for the inadmissibility and unfoundedness of the questions raised;
that, according to the State's defense, the said questions are to be considered manifestly inadmissible, as the referring court failed to describe the case under examination and to provide reasons both on the relevance and on the non-manifest unfoundedness thereof;
that, in the opinion of the State's defense, the questions should also be considered inadmissible on other grounds, as the referring court allegedly "omitted any attempt at an interpretation conforming to the Constitution" of the challenged provisions and, with reference to the provision of the accessory penalty of deduction of points from the driving license, did not consider that this provision "is not contained in the challenged provision (neither in paragraph 11 nor in paragraph 21) but in the table annexed to Article 126-bis of the Highway Code";
that, furthermore, always under the profile of the inadmissibility of the questions, the Attorney General of the State argues that the referring court "in requesting the Court to intervene to modify the accessory penalty treatment of the administrative offense referred to in Article 176, paragraph 21, of Legislative Decree No. 285/1992, did not even clarify whether it invokes the outright elimination of the accessory penalty or only the automaticity of its application";
that the State's defense argues, subordinately, that the alleged doubts of constitutionality are, in any case, unfounded.
Considering that the Justice of the Peace of Nola, Section One, raised, with reference to Articles 3 and 42, second paragraph, of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 176, paragraphs 11 and 21, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 1992;
that the State's defense has raised the objection of manifest inadmissibility of the questions raised, considering that the referral order does not contain "an adequate description of the facts underlying the referring court's judgment and does not even illustrate the circumstances of fact for which the main pecuniary penalty and, in addition, the accessory penalty of deduction of points from the driving license were imposed";
that the objection is well-founded;
that, in fact, the referral order contains no description of the facts underlying the referring court's judgment and the circumstances in which the penalties were imposed;
that, according to consistent constitutional jurisprudence, the omission or insufficient description of the facts underlying the referring court's judgment – which cannot be remedied by direct reading of the documents, precluded by the principle of self-sufficiency of the referral order (ex plurimis, Ordinances No. 64 of 2019 and No. 185 of 2013) – determines the manifest inadmissibility of the question of constitutional legitimacy, as it prevents verification of its actual relevance (most recently, ex plurimis, Ordinances No. 108 of 2020, No. 203 of 2019, No. 191 and No. 64 of 2018, No. 210 of 2017);
that, moreover, the referral order is deficient, as also objected by the State's defense, also with regard to the arguments put forward by the referring court in support of the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 42, second paragraph, of the Constitution;
that the jurisprudence of this Court requires, with regard to the non-manifest unfoundedness, that the parameters be invoked in a non-apodictic and generic manner and that the reasons why the violation of the constitutional norms is considered to have occurred be specified, under penalty of manifest inadmissibility of the questions proposed (ex multis, Ordinances No. 159 of 2021 and No. 261 of 2012);
that these omissions irremediably compromise the logical argumentative process underlying the challenges raised, which, according to the consistent jurisprudence of this Court, precludes scrutiny, affecting the admissibility of the questions;
that the aforementioned points absorb any further reason for inadmissibility.
Having considered Articles 26, second paragraph, of Law No. 87 of 11 March 1953, and 11, paragraph 1, of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
For These Reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares the manifest inadmissibility of the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 176, paragraphs 11 and 21, of Legislative Decree No. 285 of 30 April 1992 (New Highway Code), raised, with reference to Articles 3 and 42, second paragraph, of the Constitution, by the Justice of the Peace of Nola, Section One, by the ordinance indicated in the heading.
So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 18 June 2024.
Signed:
Augusto Antonio BARBERA, President
Giulio PROSPERETTI, Reporting Judge
Valeria EMMA, Registrar
Filed with the Registry on 15 July 2024