JUDGMENT NO. 152

YEAR 2024

Commentary on the decision by

Camilla Buzzacchi

Environmental sustainability and collective domains: a virtuous manifestation of subsidiarity 
in Studies 2024/III of this Journal, 1094

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Augusto Antonio BARBERA;

Judges: Franco MODUGNO, Giulio PROSPERETTI, 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 delivered the following

JUDGMENT

in the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 49, paragraph 1, letter b), of Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna No. 6 of 24 March 2004 (Reform of the regional and local administrative system. European Union and international relations. Innovation and simplification. Relations with the University), in "combined provision" with Articles 25 and 29 of Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna No. 24 of 27 May 1994 (Regulation of appointments within regional competence and extension of administrative bodies. Provisions on regional organization), promoted by the Council of State, Sixth Section, in the proceedings between the Emilia-Romagna Region and M. B. and others, by order of 5 December 2023, registered under No. 9 of the 2024 Register of Orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 6, first special series, of the year 2024.

Having examined the deeds of constitution of the Emilia-Romagna Region and of M. B. and others;

Having heard at the public hearing of 21 May 2024 Judge rapporteur Emanuela Navarretta;

Having heard the lawyers Maria Chiara Lista for the Emilia-Romagna Region and Domenico Fata for M. B. and others;

Deliberated in the council chamber on 21 May 2024.

Considered in Fact

1.– With the order of 5 December 2023 (reg. ord. No. 9 of 2024), the Council of State, Sixth Section, has raised issues of constitutional legitimacy of Article 49, paragraph 1, letter b), of the Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna No. 6 of 24 March 2004 (Reform of the regional and local administrative system. European Union and international relations. Innovation and simplification. Relations with the University), "in its combined provision with Articles 25 and 29 of the Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna No. 24 of 27 May 1994" (Regulation of appointments within regional competence and extension of administrative bodies. Provisions on regional organization), for violation of Articles 3, 9 and 117, second paragraph, letters l) and s), of the Constitution.

2.– On the factual point, the referring judge reports that, with an appeal notified on 24 October 2022, M. B., S. B., F. G., M. P., F. B., V. B., S. B. and O. T. – participants and councillors of the Agrarian Participance of Cento – challenged, before the Regional Administrative Court for Emilia-Romagna, the decree of the President of the Regional Council of Emilia-Romagna, 11 October 2022, No. 142.

This decree had ordered – pursuant to Articles 49, paragraph 1, letter b), and 50 of Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna No. 6 of 2004, as well as Article 29 of Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna No. 24 of 1994 – the dissolution of the statutory bodies of the aforementioned agrarian participance and the appointment of the special commissioner, with the task of providing for the provisional management of the entity and for the convocation of elections for the renewal of the statutory bodies. In particular, the aforementioned decree was motivated by reference to alleged management irregularities, including the late approval of the financial statements and the failure to record resolutions adopted by the associative bodies, in contrast with the statute of the entity.

According to what the referring judge reports, the TAR Emilia-Romagna upheld the appeal for the annulment of the measure on the basis of the first ground raised, considering that, "in application of the combined provision of Articles 9, paragraph 1, and 10 of Law No. 62 of 1953, 'the argument of the appellants concerning the abrogation by Law No. 168 of 2017 of the regional legislation on the supervision and control of the bodies of the Agrarian Participances' [was] 'shareable'”. Therefore, it declared the other grounds of challenge absorbed.

The referring judge then represents that, with an appeal notified on 26 June 2023 and filed on 27 June 2023, the Emilia-Romagna Region lodged an appeal, formulating several grounds.

Finally, the Council of State reports that the appellants were constituted in the proceedings a quo, who re-proposed the censures absorbed in the first instance, including the exception of constitutional illegitimacy "of Articles 49 and 50 of the Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna of 24 March 2004, No. 6, as well as Article 29 of the Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna of 27 May 1994, No. 24, for conflict with Articles 9 and 117 paragraph 2 letter s), Cost."

3.– Having thus summarised the factual premises, the referring judge states that he has upheld the first ground of appeal, having excluded that "between the regional discipline in question and the state discipline, which has supervened, contained in Law No. 168 of 2017, there [was] absolute incompatibility pursuant to Article 15 of the preliminary provisions of the Italian Civil Code”, which led him to believe that the regional legislation in question "is to be considered in force and has not been repealed”.

The referring judge therefore notes that he must proceed "to the scrutiny of the grounds of the first instance appeal declared absorbed and not examined by the first instance judge and re-proposed by the appellants, in the event of the appeal being upheld, pursuant to Article 101, paragraph 2, of the Code of Administrative Procedure".

In this context, the referring judge raises – as requested by the appellants – issues of constitutional legitimacy "of Article 49, paragraph 1, letter b) of the Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna of 24 March 2004, No. 6, in its combined provision with Articles 25 and 29 of the Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna of 27 May 1994, No. 24, for conflict with Articles 3, 9 and 117, paragraph 2, letters l) and s) of the Constitution."

4.– The Council of State considers firstly that the issues are relevant, since, "after the definition (with its acceptance) of the appeal" against the judgment of the TAR, the recognised, persistent validity of the contested rules would make their application necessary to the case in question.

It also excludes that there are margins for attempting a compliant interpretation of the regional discipline under scrutiny, given the "clear and unequivocal literal wording" of the provisions containing the contested rules.

5.– Moving on to examining the non-manifest unfoundedness of the issues, the referring judge states that the matter of public controls on the functioning of the statutory bodies of the agrarian participances (and, in general, of the representative bodies of the communities holding civic use rights and collective property) is located at the crossroads of a plurality of legislative, state and regional competences, also of a cross-cutting nature.

5.1.– In particular, in light of the provisions laid down by Law No. 168 of 20 November 2017 (Rules on collective domains), it considers that the matter of "civil law” would, first of all, come into play, being of exclusive state legislative competence pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution.

In this regard, it refers to the jurisprudence of this Court which has related to this matter the dominical regime of civic uses and collective properties (Judgments No. 236 of 2022 and No. 113 of 2018 are mentioned).

It also evokes those segments of the constitutional jurisprudence, in which this Court, on the one hand, would have highlighted "the permanence of administrative functions, including those of control, delegated" to the regions themselves, pursuant to Article 66, fourth paragraph, of the Decree of the President of the Republic of 24 July 1977, No. 616 (Implementation of the delegation referred to in Article 1 of Law No. 382 of 22 July 1975) and, on the other hand, would have specified that the "delegation is limited, precisely, to administrative functions and, therefore, does not allow the Regions to regulate the substantive requirements of the various mechanisms and, indeed, not even to intervene in the related procedures, where the [departure from the] model outlined by the state legislator ends up translating into a different way of affecting the legal regime of these assets, operating only in the individual region" (Judgment No. 236 of 2022 is again referred to).

The referring judge considers, in particular, that "at least the 'substantive requirements' for the activation and exercise of administrative functions (including those of control) in subiecta materia, insofar as they are intimately connected with the private law statute of the entity, fall within the scope of 'civil law' and are to be reserved, as such, to state legislation".

In the face of this observation, it notes that Article 49, paragraph 1, letter b), of Regional Law No. 6 of 2004 would have introduced not only a new limit to the "capacity for self-regulation" and "management of assets", guaranteed by Law No. 168 of 2017 to the representative bodies of collective domains, but also a "form of (administrative) review of its activity alternative to that, provided by common law, on associations (Articles 21 and 23 of the Italian Civil Code)".

Similarly, he deduces that the same regional rule would have outlined a peculiar case of compulsory forfeiture of the bodies of the representative entity of the community, intervening directly on the life and internal functioning of the representative entities in question, making an unreasonable, disproportionate choice that does not respect the spirit of the reform of collective domains. This would have occurred by virtue of the rule laid down by the same Article 49, paragraph 1, letter b), of the aforementioned regional law, where "the possible application of Title III, Chapter II, of Regional Law No. 24 of 1994" to the agrarian participances and, specifically, of Article 29, paragraph 1, of that same law (regarding "[s]ubstitute controls"), is made without prejudice.

5.2.– The Council of State then argues that the contested rules would also violate the exclusive state legislative competence in the matter of "protection of the environment, ecosystem and cultural heritage", referred to in Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution.

On this point, the referring judge observes that Law No. 168 of 2017 has "shifted the axis of regulation from an eminently economic-productive approach (such as that which justified its attraction, in the old structure of Title V of the Constitution, to the matter of 'agriculture and forestry') to one that is also of landscape and environmental protection, animated by the purpose of preserving those properties in favour of future generations", in line with the new wording of Article 9, third paragraph, of the Constitution, as most recently amended by Constitutional Law No. 1 of 11 February 2022 (Amendments to Articles 9 and 41 of the Constitution regarding the protection of the environment).

The referring judge believes that there would be "aspects of inevitable functional and structural overlapping between landscape-environmental protection and the dominical protection of civic use assets" (Judgment No. 113 of 2018 of this Court is referred to again) and that intervening on the functioning of the entity, which is entrusted with "this composite function", would be equivalent to "indirectly conditioning the performance of the latter, thus invading a sphere that is the exclusive domain of state legislation".

5.3.– Lastly, while conceding that "the power in the matter of 'agriculture' remains in any case vested in the ordinary-statute Regions with regard to civic uses", the Council of State observes that the constitutional jurisprudence itself would have specified "how 'in the entire period of validity of Title V, Part II, of the Constitution – both in the version prior to [Constitutional Law] No. 3 of 18 October 2001 (Amendments to Title V of Part II of the Constitution), and in the subsequent version – and, therefore, not even following D.P.R. No. 11 of 1972 and D.P.R. No. 616 of 1977 [...], the civil regime of civic assets has never passed into the sphere of competence of the Regions. In fact, the matter of 'agriculture and forestry' referred to in the previous Article 117 of the Constitution, which justified the transfer of administrative functions to the Regions and the inclusion of civic uses in their respective statutes, could never have included the regulation of the ownership and exercise of dominical rights over civic lands'" (Judgment No. 113 of 2018 is quoted again).

6.– By deed filed on 23 February 2024, the Emilia-Romagna Region has been constituted in the proceedings, objecting to the inadmissibility and manifest unfoundedness of the issues raised.

6.1.– The regional defence first focuses on the reasons that led the Region to order the dissolution of the statutory bodies of the agrarian participance and the appointment of the special commissioner, referring to a situation that was "strongly compromised".

Among the "relevant illegalities" that would have been perpetrated, the refusal by the participance bodies to transmit to the Region, for the purposes of preventive control, the "new 'Regulation for the division of heads' (land) adopted with four amendments introduced in 2020", which – according to what the regional defence reports – would contain "provisions in contrast with the Statute of the Participance and with the prohibition of dividing between the individual members of the community benefiting from civic use rights, the proceeds of the management of the assets to which such rights pertain" (Royal Decree No. 332 of 26 February 1928, containing the "Approval of the regulation for the execution of Law No. 1766 of 16 June 1927, on the reorganisation of civic uses in the Kingdom" is referred to in this regard).

The defence of the Region also reports that, following "blatant violations of powers between the Bodies" and other repeated irregularities, it had proceeded to order the dissolution of the bodies of the agrarian participance and the appointment of a special commissioner, who would have operated for about eight months, completing a series of non-deferrable tasks.

Finally, it states that, following the judgment of the TAR which annulled the regional measures, the entity would have been returned "into the hands of the victorious appellants", who should have proceeded to a new election of the bodies, after which the upholding of the first ground of appeal by the Council of State would, on the other hand, have confirmed the legitimacy of the challenged regional measures.

6.2.– Having thus summarised the factual and legal context that forms the background to today's issues of constitutional legitimacy, the Region considers that the censures raised with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letters l) and s), of the Constitution are manifestly unfounded.

6.2.1.– The regional defence shows that it shares the assumption, from which the referring judge also starts, according to which it would not be up to the Region "to legislate on the system of the Entities managing collective properties". However, it considers that the Region would never have dictated rules concerning "[t]he system of Entities in the sector [...] except to organise its activities within the scope of the transferred functions, as for every other matter, in application of the previous Article 117 of the Constitution". In the opinion of the regional defence, the contested rules would concern the profile of "public control over these Institutions, by virtue of the qualification of 'broadly public nature of the interests on which the activity exercised by them has an impact'" (Council of State, Sixth Section, judgment of 10 January 2003, No. 1912 is referred to in this regard).

6.2.2.– Next, the regional defence reconstructs the normative sequence with which the attribution to the regions of delegated competences in the matter in question would have been determined, focusing in particular on the regulatory framework that governs agrarian participances and on the tasks of protection and supervision exercised first by the state bodies and then by the regions. It therefore concludes that there would be "never any doubts about the subjection of these Entities to the same controls provided for local authorities", and that the attribution to them of private law personality pursuant to Law No. 168 of 2017 would not have changed the scope of the applicable rules.

In particular, it insists on the continuing validity of Law No. 1766 of 16 June 1927 (Conversion into law of Royal Decree No. 751 of 22 May 1924, regarding the reorganisation of civic uses in the Kingdom, of Royal Decree No. 1484 of 28 August 1924, which amends Article 26 of Royal Decree No. 751 of 22 May 1924, and of Royal Decree No. 895 of 16 May 1926, which extends the deadlines assigned by Article 2 of Royal Decree-Law No. 751 of 22 May 1924) and of the related executive regulation R.D. No. 332 of 1928, as also proposed by the referring judge in compliance with the recent pronouncements of the Court of Cassation and of this Court (Court of Cassation, United Civil Sections, judgment of 10 May 2023, No. 12570 and the judgment of this Court No. 119 of 2023, of which the regional defence reports lengthy excerpts, are cited).

Moreover, according to the Region, even if Law No. 168 of 2017 had amended the legislation on controls, the related regional discipline would be "absolutely in accordance with the state legislation on legal persons, according to which private subjects who for institutional purpose manage assets that the beneficiaries can enjoy, but not dispose of, s[would be] subject, to protect this, to the administrative controls referred to in Article 25 of the Italian Civil Code".

The Region therefore believes that "the Participances and other Entities managing collective properties are still subject to the controls provided for by the laws of the State" and that "the Region can still attribute validity and operability to the discipline of the functions that it exercises by delegation". In this sense, the D.P.R. No. 616 of 1977 would argue in favour, insofar as, in the opinion of the regional defence, it would have allowed the regions to "manage civic uses within the matter of 'agriculture and forestry'" and, upstream, would have transferred to the regions "also the competences on private legal persons in all the matters dealt with by the same decree".

6.2.3.– The regional defence doubts, instead, the "effective subtraction of collective properties from the matter of agriculture", which would underlie the approach adopted by the referring judge. On the contrary, Law No. 168 of 2017 itself would have continued to identify in the exploitation of agro-silvo-pastoral resources the original relationship between the assets and the holders of the rights regulated therein. In this context, the Region believes that the environmental and landscape function, increasingly valued also in constitutional and legitimacy jurisprudence, would not replace, but would be alongside the agro-silvo-pastoral function, which is traditionally attributed to collective domains, and from which it is still possible to draw a framework in the matter of "agriculture".

6.3.– Next, the Emilia-Romagna Region considers the issues raised to be inadmissible.

It argues, in fact, that the censures of the referring judge should not have been referred to the regional rules, but rather to Article 14 of the D.P.R. No. 616 of 1977, in the part in which it transfers to the regions the power of control also over the private entities referred to in Article 12 of the Italian Civil Code, as well as to Article 66, paragraphs five and six, of the same D.P.R., in the part in which it connects this transfer to the matter of "agriculture and forestry" (by means of the reference to the Decree of the President of the Republic of 15 January 1972, No. 11, containing the "Transfer to the Regions with ordinary statute of the state administrative functions in matters of agriculture and forestry, hunting and fishing in inland waters and of the related personnel and offices").

According to the regional defence, in fact, the contested rules would have been adopted precisely on the basis of this transfer and would have limited themselves to providing organisational provisions for the delegated activity, in application of Article 117 of the Constitution in the text prior to the reform.

7.– By deed filed on 23 February 2024, Mr M. B., S. B., F. G., M. P., F. B., V. B., S. B. and O. T., appellants in the proceedings a quo, have been constituted in the proceedings, and have insisted on the upholding of the issues raised.

7.1.– According to the defence of the private parties, Law No. 168 of 2017 would have had a significant impact on the matter, so that the very nature of collective domains, the overcoming of the configuration in a "publicistic key that Law No. 1766/1927 had conferred on them" and the recognised "capacity for self-regulation" of these entities (Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b, of Law No. 168 of 2017) would lead to excluding that "the Participance may be the recipient of the discipline referred to in Article 29 of the Regional Law 24/1994", applicable to the entities dependent on the Region.

In particular, they argue that, "even if a control could be considered not incongruous – like that which the Civil Code provides for cooperatives (Article 2545 quaterdecies of the Italian Civil Code) or for banking foundations (see the Ciampi Law No. 461 of 1998 and Decree Law No. 28/2010) [–] this could only come from the State – with special laws – for the competence attributable only to it in the matter of civil law".

7.2.– The private parties also dispute that the regional rules can be justified by virtue of the provisions of Article 3, paragraph 7, of Law No. 168 of 2017 itself, since this rule – sector-specific – refers expressly to the "mountain organisations" only.

7.3.– Finally, the defence of the private parties believes that the subjection of the entities in question to regional supervision and control powers could not be considered an expression of regional legislative competence in the matter of "agriculture and forestry", given, on the one hand, the departure from the culture of administrative controls after the reform of Title V of Part II of the Constitution of 2001 and, on the other hand, the progressive valorisation of collective property in terms of landscape-environmental protection, which attracts the matter in question to the exclusive legislative competence of the State (Judgments No. 71 of 2020 and No. 113 of 2018 are cited in this regard).

8.– With a supplementary brief filed on 19 April 2024, the private parties have further insisted on the upholding of the issues raised.

8.1.– They believe, first of all, that the factual reconstructions proposed by the Region are unfounded and insist on arguing that the latter has gone far beyond the discipline of the functions that had been delegated to it with the D.P.R. No. 616 of 1977, intervening directly on the management methods, and interfering "in the 'capacity for self-regulation' and 'management of assets'” of the entity.

8.2.– According to the defence of the private parties, various arguments would lead to the same outcome of the declaration of constitutional illegitimacy of the contested rules.

The regional legislation, in contemplating penetrating powers of control and supervision over the agrarian participances, would first of all be without justification in the changed constitutional and legislative framework of reference, with the reform of Title V of Part II of the Constitution and with the recognition of the private law legal personality of the representative entities.

On the other hand, again according to the defence of the private parties, there would have been no – in the light of constitutional jurisprudence – any transfer of legislative competences concerning the "substantive requirements for the activation and exercise of administrative functions". These, in fact, insofar as they are "intimately connected with the private law statute" of the participances, would fall within the matter of "civil law", the regulation of which is up to the exclusive legislative competence of the State. The contested rules would end up, in essence, by introducing a review alternative to that of common law provided for associations by Articles 21 and 23 of the Italian Civil Code.

8.3.– Finally, the private parties insist on the nature of collective domains, as results from the definition in Law No. 168 of 2017, as primary legal systems of the original communities, towards which the constitutional order would proceed to a mere recognition. Their defence therefore connects the legislation of 2017 – which would have a "constitutional tone" – to the more recent intervention of constitutional revision of Article 9 of the Constitution, insofar as the task of "acting as a bridge between past generations [...] and the future inhabitants of those lands" would have been foreseen for the collective domains. The defence of the private parties therefore refers to the constitutional jurisprudence, which has progressively valorised collective domains in an environmental key, and adheres to the censures of the referring judge on the violation of the exclusive state legislative competence in the matter of "protection of the environment", referred to in Article 117, second paragraph, letter s), of the Constitution, which would be caused by the regional rules object of the issues raised, given that these rules would end up "impacting at least indirectly also on the performance of environmental protection functions".

8.4.– As for the objection raised by the Region on the alleged inadmissibility of the issues due to failure to challenge Articles 14 and 66 of the D.P.R. No. 616 of 1977, this – according to the defence of the private parties – would be unfounded, given that no rule would have delegated to the regions legislative competences in the matter of supervision and control.

9.– With a supplementary brief filed on 30 April 2024, the Emilia-Romagna Region reiterates that the undisputed nature of private law legal person of the agrarian participance would in no way be decisive for the purposes of the "evaluation of its subjection to administrative controls", and this would be proven by the fact that foundations would be subject to "administrative controls not very different from those of local authorities". This conclusion would also be led to by the consideration of the undoubted public interest, underlying the conservation of the assets belonging to the communities also for the purposes of transmission to future generations.

According to the regional defence, there would be no overlap between the competences exercised by the State in Law No. 168 of 2017 and what is laid down by the Region in matters of controls, since that provided for by the contested rules "would not [be] a control on the merits of the civil law rights of civic use, or limiting said faculties, or interesting the regulation on the ownership and exercise of dominical rights over civic lands", but would concern "the different profile of the regularity and procedural legitimacy of the mechanisms of election and functioning of the Entity, which is to protect and safeguard the same participating holders, in order – of unquestionable public interest – to ensure, through the regularity of the procedures and [...] the full correspondence of the formation of the governing Bodies of the Entity, to the law, the Statute, and the Regulation of which it has adopted, the continuity over time of a "collective domain", as closely as possible to its own purposes".

The Region therefore insists on the fact that the control provided for by the contested rules cannot be considered an illegitimate extension of powers of control originally conceived for entities dependent on and instrumental to the Region itself, but is a type of control specifically provided for agrarian participances, according to a ratio that would be identical to that which supervises the controls on foundations.

The defence of the Region replies, finally, to the arguments put forward by the private parties in the deed of constitution, reiterating the "clear conflict" between the resolutions to amend the regulation for the division of heads and the statute of the participance, recalling, in this regard, the ruling of the Ordinary Court of Ferrara, civil section, of 27 March 2024, with which various resolutions of the bodies of the participance were "declared null and void for conflict with the statutory rules". It concludes by reiterating that the entry into force of Law No. 168 of 2017, which would have made no provision in the matter of control, would have confirmed the persistent validity of a power of supervision over the representative bodies of the participance.

10.– At the public hearing of 21 May 2024, the defence of the Emilia-Romagna Region insisted on the conclusions set out in the defence briefs, emphasising how the decision of this Court is destined to transcend the regional dimension. At the same hearing, the defence of the private parties also intervened to reiterate their adherence to the approach of the referring order.

Considered in Law

1.– With the order indicated in the epigraph (reg. ord. No. 9 of 2024), the Council of State, Sixth Section, has raised issues of constitutional legitimacy of Article 49, paragraph 1, letter b), of Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna No. 6 of 2004, "in its combined provision with Articles 25 and 29 of the Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna of 27 May 1994, No. 24", for violation of Articles 3, 9 and 117, second paragraph, letters l) and s), of the Constitution, with regard to – respectively – the matters of "civil law" and "protection of the environment, ecosystem and cultural heritage".

2.– The aforementioned Article 49 provides: "the Regional Council exercises preventive control of legitimacy over the resolutions [...] b) of the agrarian participances of Emilia-Romagna concerning the Statutes and regulations, without prejudice to the possible application of Title III, Chapter II, of Regional Law No. 24 of 1994". Among the provisions included therein are Article 25 of Regional Law of Emilia-Romagna No. 24 of 1994, according to which the aforementioned Chapter II concerns subjects qualified as "entities dependent" on the Region, and Article 29 of the same regional law, which provides for incisive powers to dissolve the bodies and to place the entity under the management of a commissioner.

3.– The referring section of the Council of State reports that it has been called upon in appeal proceedings against the decision of the TAR Emilia-Romagna, which had upheld the appeal of a group of councillors and magistrates of the Agrarian Participance of Cento. Before the first instance judge, the appellants had requested the annulment of the regional resolutions with which the dissolution of the statutory bodies of the agrarian participance and the appointment of a commissioner had been ordered. The TAR Emilia-Romagna had upheld the first ground of appeal, considering that the regional rules on which the adoption of the contested acts was based were no longer in force.

The Region has lodged an appeal against this decision.

In the appellate proceedings, the referring judge has amended the first instance judgment, finding the continued validity of the regional rules in question, of whose constitutional legitimacy it nevertheless doubts.

4.– The referring judge therefore raises several issues of constitutional legitimacy, which it justifies, from the point of view of relevance, with