JUDGMENT NO. 134

YEAR 2024

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Augusto Antonio BARBERA

Justices: 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 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 30 November 2000 (Provisions concerning the personnel of the Armed Forces and the Police Forces) and of Article 45, paragraph 30, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 May 2017, containing «Provisions regarding the revision of the roles of the Police Forces, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a), of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, on the reorganization of public administrations», initiated by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, first section quater, in the proceedings between G. G. and the Ministry of the Interior, with order of 19 January 2024, registered under No. 25 of the 2024 ordinance register and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 10, first special series, of the year 2024.

Having reviewed the deed of constitution of G. G. and the deed of intervention of the President of the Council of Ministers;

Having heard, in the public hearing of 4 June 2024, the reporting Judge Maria Rosaria San Giorgio;

Having heard Attorney Benedetta Lubrano for G. G. and the State Attorneys Giancarlo Pampanelli and Enrico De Giovanni for the President of the Council of Ministers;

Having deliberated in the council chamber of 4 June 2024.

Facts of the Case

1.– By order of 19 January 2024, registered under No. 25 of the 2024 ordinance register, the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, first section quater, has raised, with reference to Articles 3 and 36 of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 30 November 2000 (Provisions concerning the personnel of the Armed Forces and the Police Forces), insofar as it does not provide that «[t]he provisions of Article 9, Presidential Decree No. 51/2009 also apply to managerial personnel, to whom an allowance equal to that received by personnel of the same rank in service at the GIS of the Carabinieri is paid according to the criteria of Table I attached to Law No. 78/1873 [recte: Law No. 78/1983]».

1.1.– The Regional Administrative Court for Lazio has also censured, for conflict with Article 3 of the Constitution, Article 45, paragraph 30, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 May 2017, containing «Provisions regarding the revision of the roles of the Police Forces, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a), of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, on the reorganization of public administrations», insofar as it does not provide that, «[a]lways starting from 1 October 2018, the provisions of Article 9, Presidential Decree No. 51/2009 also apply to managerial personnel of the NOCS, to whom an allowance equal to that received by managerial personnel of the GIS of the Carabinieri is paid, determined according to the relative qualification according to the criteria of Table I attached to Law No. 78/1873 [recte: Law No. 78/1983]».

1.2.– The referring court reports that, in the proceedings pending before it, the applicant, G. G., an employee of the State Police in service at the Central Operational Security Unit (NOCS) since 1 October 2009, has stated that he was promoted, with effect from 1 January 2018, to the position of deputy police commissioner, continuing to serve in the same unit and to receive the employment allowance for personnel belonging to it as provided for in Article 9, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 16 April 2009 (Implementation of the trade union agreement for the Civil Order Police Forces and the concertation measure for the Military Order Police Forces, supplementary to Presidential Decree No. 170 of 11 September 2007, relating to the four-year regulatory period 2006-2009 and the two-year economic period 2006-2007), without, however, the relative amount being adjusted to the new managerial qualification. This is because the Table attached to the aforementioned Presidential Decree did not contain specific indications for managerial roles.

The applicant has therefore requested to ascertain «[t]he illegitimacy of the silence and the conduct of inertia held by the Ministry in relation to the duty to complete the table relating to employment allowances due for belonging to the N.O.C.S.» and, therefore, the obligation of the same Ministry to adopt the requested measure. The same party has lamented the illegitimacy, «if considered a denial measure», of the note with which the defending Administration, in response to its formal notices, had declared that it was unable to update the amount of the allowance due to the position of deputy police commissioner, in the absence of «a regulatory extension […] of this particular allowance to the managerial personnel of the State Police».

In support of the appeal, the order for referral continues, G. G. has complained about the violation of the «rules and principles on equal treatment», of the «rules and principles concerning the homogeneity of treatment of personnel belonging to the Security/Defense Sector», the abuse of power due to lack of investigation, the illogical and contradictory reasoning, the violation of Articles 2 and 3 of Law No. 241 of 7 August 1990 (New rules on administrative procedure and the right of access to administrative documents) and of Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution.

The referring court then reports that it has declared inadmissible, with a non-definitive judgment, the request for ascertainment of the illegitimacy of the administration's silence, having qualified the aforementioned note of the Ministry of the Interior as a measure of denial, and that it has subsequently, by order of 26 January 2023, No. 1409, ordered the acquisition of a report, accompanied by all documentation useful to clarify the terms of the matter; it also reports that this report, prepared by the Ministry of the Interior in concert with that of Defense, was deposited on 15 June 2023.

1.3.– Having established this, the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio has reconstructed the reference regulatory framework, recalling that Article 9 of Law No. 78 of 23 March 1983 (Update of Law No. 187 of 5 May 1976, relating to the operational allowances of military personnel) had granted to officers and non-commissioned officers of the Navy, Army and Air Force who hold a military commando or underwater operator license and who are serving in commando and underwater units, as well as in air rescue centers and units, the commando allowance. Then, Articles 13 and 52 of Presidential Decree No. 254 of 16 March 1999 (Implementation of the trade union agreement for the Civil Order Police Forces and the concertation measure for the Military Order Police Forces relating to the four-year regulatory period 1998-2001 and the two-year economic period 1998-1999), from 1 January 1999, extended the application of this payment to the personnel of the roles of the State Police, the Prison Police Corps and the State Forestry Corps – excluding the respective managers and auxiliary conscripted personnel – who were in the employment conditions provided for by the same Article 9 of Law No. 78 of 1983, and also to the personnel of the roles of the Carabinieri and the Guardia di Finanza Corps, once again excluding the respective managers and auxiliary conscripted personnel, who are in the employment conditions referred to in the aforementioned provision. Subsequently, Article 4 of Law No. 356 of 2000 provided that the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 254 of 1999, concerning the operational employment allowance for air navigation, flight, piloting, embarkation activities and the related supplementary allowances, including that for underwater commandos, apply to civil and military managers of the Police Forces respectively concerned, thus expressly extending the commando allowance also to the managerial personnel of the State Police and the Carabinieri.

The referring court notes that, as a result of these provisions, the personnel of the Special Intervention Group (GIS) of the Carabinieri who hold the military commando license have benefited from the commando allowance, unlike the personnel of the NOCS who have remained, instead, excluded as they do not have this specific title.

This is because, the referral order clarifies, Article 9, paragraph 2, of Law No. 78 of 1983, referred to by Articles 13 and 52 of Presidential Decree No. 254 of 1999, in turn extended to the managers of the State Police and the Carabinieri, provided that the commando allowance was received only by individuals in possession of a military commando license and an underwater operator license.

The referring court also observes that, precisely because of this clarification, Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 provided for the extension of the commando allowance to NOCS personnel of the State Police who do not have a managerial qualification. This was in order, as stated in the explanatory report of the aforementioned regulation, to remove «a clear penalization» of NOCS personnel who, like those of the GIS, may be called upon to carry out interventions characterized by a high risk to personal safety and which require hard and continuous operational training.

Nevertheless, the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio points out, the corrective measure referred to in the aforementioned Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 has not been extended to the managerial personnel of the NOCS, as the legislator has not provided either to adjust the provision – Article 4 of Law No. 356 of 2000 – with which it had extended to managerial personnel the other allowances granted to non-managerial personnel in the negotiation phase, nor to provide for the extension of the emolument under consideration to managers on the occasion of the reorganization of the roles of the Police Forces carried out with Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017.

1.4.– Having stated the above, the Regional Administrative Court, having considered it impracticable to make a constitutionally oriented interpretation of the provision of Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 2000, denounces, in the first place, its conflict with Article 3 of the Constitution, for being productive of an unjustified disparity of treatment between the managers of the NOCS and those of the GIS.

The personnel serving at the NOCS, the referring court observes, have the necessary qualifications to perform the same tasks as those of the GIS, including commando activities, and are destined to operate in the same conditions, being called upon to carry out interventions that require hard and continuous training and are characterized by a high risk to personal safety.

According to the referring court, the only distinguishing feature between the managers of the two units is the commando license, which is only held by the Carabinieri of the GIS, and, however, when approving Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009, this element was not considered sufficient to justify differentiated treatment.

To this must be added, in the opinion of the referring court, that a principle of a tendency towards homogeneity in the financial treatment of the managers of the Civil Order Police Forces, those of the Military Order and the Armed Forces has been progressively affirmed in the legal system, as evidenced by Article 46 of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, according to which the regulation of the supplementary treatment of their managerial personnel must take place «in compliance with the principle of substantial equalization of the treatments of the managers of the Police Forces and the Armed Forces».

The referring court therefore believes that there is an identity of functions between the managers of the GIS and the NOCS that makes the failure to update Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 2000, after the entry into force of Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009, unjustified and unreasonable.

The challenged provision would produce an unjustified disparity of treatment also within the NOCS, between managerial and non-managerial personnel, given that managers also perform tasks of planning and participation in high-risk special interventions.

Finally, the challenged provision would conflict with Article 36 of the Constitution, «which requires that remuneration be proportionate to the quantity and quality of the work performed».

Nor would the circumstance that the applicant, with the transition into managerial roles, has not lost the allowance in the amount previously received be relevant, as the failure to adjust it to the new functions and responsibilities linked to the acquired managerial qualification would in any case conflict with Articles 3 and 36 of the Constitution.

Finally, the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio specifies that it has identified the provision subject to censure in Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 2000, as this provision concerns the «regulatory extensions for managerial personnel» of the allowances established for the non-managerial personnel of the State Police by the Presidential Decree implementing the trade union agreement prior to the one implemented by Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009, and that the additive intervention requested is «mandatory», as the allowance for which the extension is hoped for has been established in an amount corresponding to that received by the personnel of the Carabinieri serving at the GIS, which, in turn, is determined, also for managerial roles, according to Table I attached to Law No. 78 of 1983.

1.5.– The referring court then also addresses criticisms to Article 45, paragraph 30, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, insofar as it does not provide that from 1 October 2018 – the effective date of this provision – the employment allowance referred to in Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 also applies to the managerial personnel of the NOCS of the State Police.

This failure to provide would conflict with Article 3 of the Constitution, as it «crystallizes and confirms the disparity of treatment between the managers of the GIS and those of the NOCS», despite the existence of a regulatory framework that requires homogeneity between the treatments of the managers of the special intervention groups of the two Police Forces that have the same qualifications, competences and functions and are destined to operate in the same risk conditions.

According to the referring court, the formulation of this further question does not determine the inadmissibility of the first question, «but would at most (in the event of acceptance of the first question), be a reason for the “supervening irrelevance” (or, if desired, of the “inadmissibility”) of the second question of constitutional illegitimacy».

2.– The President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General's Office, intervened in the proceedings, requesting that the questions be declared inadmissible and in any case manifestly unfounded.

The intervener, recalling the case law of this Court, observes that the regime of military public safety personnel is not homogeneous with that of the civil personnel of the same sector, given that military employment differs from that of employees of the State Police, due to a strong interpenetration between the regulatory profiles and the discipline of the employment relationship (the judgment No. 33 of 2023 and the order No. 36 of 2023 are cited).

From this, in the opinion of the State defense, it would follow that the updating of Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 2000, desired by the referring court, could not be carried out by this Court, but should be carried out through a regulatory intervention expressing the discretion of the legislator, who alone can balance the various needs within the framework of the general economic policy and the concrete financial availability (the judgments No. 241 of 1996 and No. 226 of 1993 are cited).

3.– G. G., the applicant in the main proceedings, has also joined the proceedings, making considerations in favor of the criticisms of constitutional illegitimacy formulated by the referring court.

3.1.– With a brief filed on 10 May 2024, G. G. confirmed the conclusions drawn in the deed of constitution, corroborating them with further arguments.

The applicant contests the assertion of the State Attorney General's Office according to which the distinguishing element between the professional categories being compared would reside in the holding, only by the managers of the GIS, of the commando license.

It is, therefore, emphasized in the brief that this license allows the corresponding allowance to be obtained both by officers and non-commissioned officers of the military corps and, by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 254 of 1999, of the State Police itself.

It is added that the recognition of the allowance pursuant to Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 is based on the substantial assimilability of the members of the NOCS to the personnel of the GIS, both with reference to the functions performed and with regard to the specific qualification that, for the GIS, is linked to the commando license and for the NOCS is correlated to the corresponding qualification title, as well as to the special training to which the operators of both units are subjected in comparison.

The identity between the members of the GIS and those of the NOCS – the party notes – is also confirmed by the coincidence of the amount of the allowance pursuant to Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 with respect to that of the homologous benefit due to the Carabinieri of the GIS.

Nor could the exclusion of the managers of the Central Operational Security Unit from the enjoyment of the allowance in question be considered an expression of the discretion of the legislator, given the identity of the functions performed by the categories of employees being compared.

The lack of legislation that equates the managers belonging to the two special units – G. G. observes – determines a disparity of treatment that only the intervention of this Court can resolve by amending Article 4 of Law No. 356 of 2000 or by including the allowance pursuant to Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 among the economic allocations listed in Article 45, paragraph 30, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017.

The inertia of the legislator would, at the same time, realize «an equally unmotivated and illogical equalization in the financial treatment between non-managerial and managerial personnel of the NOCS», also infringing the principle of proportionality of the remuneration and of the adequacy of the same to the commitment required, as stated by Article 36 of the Constitution.

Legal Grounds

1.– The Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, first section quater, doubts, first of all, the constitutional legitimacy of Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 2000, according to which «[t]he provisions of Presidential Decree No. 254 of 16 March 1999, concerning the economic treatment of missions and transfers, the allowance for night or holiday presence, the daily fee for external services, the allowance for public order at headquarters, working and service hours, holidays, ordinary and extraordinary leave or licenses, expectations, short permits, the protection of working mothers, accident prevention, hygiene and safety at work, the right to study, cultural elevation and updating, training and updating, trade union rights, legal protection, meal vouchers, day care centers, the operational employment allowance for air navigation, flight, piloting, embarkation activities and related supplementary allowances, including that for underwater commandos, apply to the civil and military managers of the Police Forces respectively concerned with the same starting dates for the regulatory part and from 1 January 2000 for the economic part».

According to the referring court, this provision would conflict with Articles 3 and 36 of the Constitution, insofar as it does not provide that the operational employment allowance granted by Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 to the non-managerial personnel of the Central Operational Security Unit of the State Police also applies to employees with a managerial qualification in service at the same unit.

1.1.– Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 2000 would determine, first of all, an unreasonable disparity of treatment between the managers of the NOCS and the managerial personnel of the Special Intervention Group of the Carabinieri, to whom an allowance for operational employment – the commando allowance referred to in Article 9, second paragraph, of Law No. 78 of 1983 – is, instead, recognized.

This discrepancy would be completely unjustified, as the employees being compared perform identical functions, are equipped with the same qualifications and operate in the same risk conditions.

1.1.1.– The challenged provision would conflict with the principle of equality also from a different point of view, as, within the same NOCS, it would unreasonably discriminate managerial personnel with respect to employees without a managerial qualification.

1.1.2.– The provision under examination would also conflict with Article 36 of the Constitution, for violation of the principle of proportionality of remuneration to the quantity and quality of the work performed.

1.2.– The Regional Administrative Court for Lazio has also censured Article 45, paragraph 30, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, according to which «[i]n the first phase of application of this decree and in relation to the implementation of Article 46, starting from 1 January 2018, the following provisions are applied to personnel with a qualification starting from deputy police commissioner and corresponding qualifications and ranks, insofar as they are compatible in relation to the system of each Police Force: a) Articles 10, 12, 13, 49 and, to the extent established for the homologous ranks of officers of the Armed Forces, 50 of Presidential Decree No. 164 of 18 June 2002; b) Articles 6 and 13 of Presidential Decree No. 301 of 5 November 2004; c) Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 of Presidential Decree No. 170 of 11 September 2007; d) Articles 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 16 April 2009; d-bis) Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31 of Presidential Decree No. 39 of 15 March 2018».

The referring court believes that this provision – insofar as it does not provide that, starting from 1 October 2018, the employment allowance referred to in Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 is also due to the managerial personnel of the State Police in service at the Central Operational Security Unit – conflicts with Article 3 of the Constitution, «because it crystallizes and confirms the disparity of treatment between the managers of the GIS and those of the NOCS», despite the reference legislation and, in particular, the Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017 itself, «requir[ing] homogeneity between the treatments of the managers of the special intervention groups» being compared, whose employees possess the same qualifications and competences, perform identical functions and operate in the same risk conditions.

2.– Preliminarily, it is observed that the overall motivation of the referral order clearly shows that the criticisms addressed to Article 45, paragraph 30, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017 are logically subordinate to the rejection of the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 2000, raised as a priority.

2.1.– Also on a preliminary basis, the exception of inadmissibility raised by the State Attorney General's Office must be rejected on the assumption that the «updating» of Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of 2000 through the extension of the allowance referred to in Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 to the managers of the NOCS, desired by the referring court, would not be «achievable through the constitutional review of the provisions under consideration», involving «an alignment of the financial treatments between the police forces» that only the legislator can provide.

These considerations do not prevent the examination of the questions, since, also in the matter of the financial treatment of public employees, under consideration here, the even wide discretion reserved to the legislator, finding a limit in reasonableness, does not exclude the need for the legislative choice challenged to be assessed in the light of this parameter.

The referring Panel, in fact, does not deny the pertinence of the discipline under consideration to the area of legislative discretion, but requests a review of the exercise of this discretion, assuming that the regulatory choice that has ensued is unreasonably discriminatory and harmful to the principle of proportionality of remuneration referred to in Article 36 of the Constitution.

3.– For the examination of the merits, it is appropriate to preface a brief reconstruction of the regulatory framework in which the discipline under examination is inserted.

3.1.– The employment allowance for the personnel of the Central Operational Security Unit of the State Police was established by Article 9, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 for employees holding the qualification of NOCS operator who have passed the periodic suitability test for employment in the operational sector of the same unit. It is paid on an ongoing basis, on a monthly basis, and is established, based on the qualification and length of service, in the amounts indicated in the Table inserted in the same Article 9, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 and last redetermined by Article 13, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree No. 57 of 20 April 2022 (Implementation of the trade union agreement for the non-managerial personnel of the Civil Order Police Forces and the concertation measure for the non-managerial personnel of the Military Order Police Forces «Three-year period 2019-2021»).

Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Article 9, the allowance under consideration is due only to non-managerial personnel and can be combined with the monthly pensionable allowance according to the methods provided for by Article 1, paragraph 2, of Law No. 505 of 5 August 1978 (Adjustment of some allowances due to the police forces).

3.2.– Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 implemented the trade union agreement for the Civil Order Police Forces and the concertation measure for the Military Order Police Forces, supplementary to Presidential Decree No. 170 of 11 September 2007, containing «Implementation of the trade union agreement and the concertation measure for the non-managerial personnel of the Civil and Military Order Police Forces (four-year regulatory period 2006-2009 and two-year economic period 2006-2007)».

From the technical report accompanying the decree, it can be seen that the allowance in question was introduced in order to eliminate the disparity of treatment between personnel in service at the NOCS of the State Police and that in force at the GIS of the Carabinieri.

It is precisely to remedy this exclusion that, in the collective negotiation phase, an allowance was established specifically intended for the personnel assigned to the special intervention unit of the State Police corresponding, from the content and functional point of view, to that received by the Carabinieri in service at the GIS and aimed at avoiding the continuation «of an evident clear penalization of the NOCS personnel».

The report also highlights how paragraph 1 of Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 indicates the monthly amount due in relation to each qualification and length of service with measures identical to those provided for the allowance pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 2, of Law No. 78 of 1983 paid to the employees of the GIS (one hundred and eighty percent of the basic operational allowance).

The same technical report notes how the specular nature between the disciplines being compared can also be seen in paragraph 3 of Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009, which grants the employment allowance (limited to the days of actual participation in operations and exercises) also to personnel serving at the special unit assigned to operational and training activities, but not in possession of the qualification of NOCS operator, similarly to what is provided for the personnel of the Carabinieri serving at the GIS, but lacking the commando license.

3.3.– Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 does not include managers among the beneficiaries of the operational employment allowance, as, as specified by Article 1 of Legislative Decree No. 195 of 12 May 1995 (Implementation of Article 2 of Law No. 216 of 6 March 1992, on procedures for regulating the contents of the employment relationship of the personnel of the Police Forces and the Armed Forces), at the time of the issue of the aforementioned decree, the employment relationship of the civil and military personnel of the Police Forces with a managerial qualification was excluded from the negotiation area – established only for non-managerial employees – and remained regulated «by the respective systems pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 4, and the other provisions of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 30 March 2001».

It should, however, be considered that, unlike other operational allowances, that established for NOCS operators has not been extended to managerial personnel even on the occasion of the reform for the reorganization of the roles of the Police Forces introduced by Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017 in implementation of Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a), of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015 (Delegations to the Government on the reorganization of public administrations).

In fact, the emolument pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 is not among the many economic benefits granted to non-managerial employees in the trade union phase, which Article 45, paragraph 30, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017 has extended «[i]n the first phase of application of the […] decree and in relation to the implementation of Article 46, starting from 1 January 2018, to personnel with a qualification starting from deputy police commissioner and corresponding qualifications and ranks».

3.4.– The collective bargaining phase has not intervened on the entitlement of the compensation pursuant to Article 9 of Presidential Decree No. 51 of 2009 to the managers of the NOCS either, given that, as confirmed by the referring court itself, despite Article 46 of the same Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017 having established, also for the police personnel of civil order with a managerial qualification, a negotiation area «limited to the regulatory institutions in the matter of employment relationship and supplementary treatments» to be implemented within six months from the entry into force of the decree, no trade union agreement has yet been concluded.

4.– Having stated the above, the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 4, paragraph 1, of Law No. 356 of