JUDGMENT NO. 175

YEAR 2024

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Augusto Antonio BARBERA;

Justices: 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 pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the constitutional legitimacy proceedings concerning Articles 1, paragraph 1 – in the part that replaces Article 1, paragraph 178, letters d) and i), of Law No. 178 of December 30, 2020 (State Budget for the Financial Year 2021 and Multi-Year Budget for the Three-Year Period 2021-2023) –, 2, paragraph 4, from 9 to 15 and 22 of Decree-Law No. 124 of September 19, 2023 (Urgent provisions regarding cohesion policies, for the economic recovery in the areas of Southern Italy, as well as in the matter of immigration), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 162 of November 13, 2023, promoted by the Campania Region with an appeal notified on January 15, 2024, filed with the court registry on January 16, 2024, registered under No. 2 of the 2024 appeals register and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 6, first special series, of the year 2024.

Having seen the act of constitution of the President of the Council of Ministers;

Having heard, in the public hearing of September 25, 2024, the Reporting Justice Stefano Petitti;

Having heard the lawyer Almerina Bove and Angelo Marzocchella for the Campania Region and the State Attorney Paola Palmieri for the President of the Council of Ministers;

Deliberated in the Council Chamber of September 25, 2024.

Considered in fact

1.– By appeal notified on January 15, 2024, and filed on the following January 16 (reg. rec. No. 2 of 2024), the Campania Region, in the person of the President pro tempore, challenged several provisions of Decree-Law No. 124 of September 19, 2023 (Urgent provisions regarding cohesion policies, for the economic recovery in the areas of Southern Italy, as well as in the matter of immigration), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 162 of November 13, 2023.

2.– Article 1, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, is challenged in the part in which – by replacing Article 1, paragraph 178, of Law No. 178 of December 30, 2020 (State Budget for the Financial Year 2021 and Multi-Year Budget for the Three-Year Period 2021-2023) – it provided, in letter d) of the latter, that the Minister for European Affairs, Southern Italy, Cohesion Policies and the NRRP and each President of a region or autonomous province, «having taken note of the results of the previous programming cycles, [...] shall define, by mutual agreement, an agreement, called "Cohesion Agreement”, which identifies the development objectives to be pursued through the implementation of specific interventions, also with the contribution of multiple sources of financing».

2.1.– According to the Campania Region, the phrase «having taken note of the results of the previous programming cycles», if interpreted to mean that the signing of the agreement is subject to the verification of the results of the previous programming cycles, rather than the state of progress thereof, would be in conflict with Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution.

Given the necessary time misalignment that exists between the recognition of the results of the previous programming cycles and the definition of the new cohesion program, the challenged provision would, in fact, be a harbinger of «very serious uncertainties» because, by not clarifying the contents and phases of this preliminary assessment, it would place the administrations that are the recipients of the resources «in a position of serious and unjustifiable weakness, as well as subjection» to the competent Minister, with the risk of paralyzing «an entire system of cohesion policies and, consequently, of social and economic support to the territories».

The profiles of redundancy of the regional censure would be derived from the violation of Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution (as the challenged provision affects the matter of «coordination of public finances»), as well as of Articles 5, 118, and 119 of the Constitution, given that the aforementioned uncertainty would undermine the possibility of concluding the procedure for the completion of the agreement, thus preventing the appealing Region from using the instrument necessary for the implementation of economic, social, and territorial cohesion policies and for the removal, in its territory, of the related imbalances.

3.– Furthermore, the provision introduced by the same Article 1, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, in letter i) of Article 1, paragraph 178, of Law No. 178 of 2020, is challenged in the part in which it provides that «[t]o deal with any liquidity shortages, the resources of the Development and Cohesion Fund referred to in Legislative Decree No. 88 of May 31, 2011, allocated for an intervention and not yet used, may be reallocated for an intervention owned by another administration, the implementation of which is of an urgent nature. In such a case, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers – Department for Cohesion Policies, in agreement with the General Inspectorate for Financial Relations with the European Union of the Department of the General State Accounting Office of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, shall arrange the reallocation of resources for the new intervention, having consulted the administration owning the defunded intervention».

3.1.– According to the Campania Region, this provision would be harmful to the principle of balanced budget referred to in Article 81 of the Constitution, as well as to the principles of equality, impartiality and good performance of the administration referred to in Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution.

It would in fact be constitutionally illegitimate to recognize the Department for Cohesion Policies the power to arrange, unilaterally, the reallocation of resources already allocated to a regional administration, thus harming its financial autonomy and its «ability to usefully plan its administrative action», all the more so in a context falling within the matter of concurrent legislative competence «coordination of public finance», in which the principle of loyal cooperation is in force, with consequent violation of Articles 5, 117, 118, 119, and 120 of the Constitution.

4.– Finally, Article 2, paragraph 4, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, is challenged in the part in which it provides that «[f]ailure to comply with the annual spending schedule, as resulting from the financial plan of the Cohesion Agreement [...] determines the defunding of the Agreement itself for an amount corresponding to the difference between the planned annual expenditure, as indicated in the schedule, and the payments made, as resulting from the National Monitoring System referred to in Article 4».

4.1.– This provision would conflict with Articles 3, 81, and 97 of the Constitution because it fails to preserve the circumstance that «the delay is due to causes not attributable to the beneficiary Administration and, in any case, is recoverable during the programming period and in the part in which it provides that the resources deriving from such defunding shall not be re-employed by the same Administration assigned thereto», with consequences that spill over into the areas of autonomy guaranteed to the appealing Region by Articles 5, 117, third paragraph (always in reference to the matter of «coordination of public finances»), 118, 119, and 120 of the Constitution.

Articles 5 and 119 of the Constitution would also be harmed, given that the risk of defunding for causes not attributable to the appealing Region and withdrawn from the responsibility of its governing bodies would seriously compromise the regional planning capacity and, with it, its «ability to self-determine».

5.– With a second group of censures, the Campania Region challenged, with reference to multiple constitutional parameters, Articles 9 to 15 and 22 of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, with which the Special Economic Zone for Southern Italy (so-called Single SEZ) was established and regulated.

5.1.– The appellant states that, pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, Special Economic Zone (SEZ) means «a delimited area of the State territory in which the exercise of economic and entrepreneurial activities by already operational companies and those that will establish themselves may benefit from special conditions in relation to investments and business development activities».

With paragraph 2 of the same article, starting from January 1, 2024, the Single SEZ for Southern Italy is established, which includes the territories of the Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Molise, Puglia, Sicily, and Sardinia Regions.

As a result of this regulation, the regulation of the SEZs contained in Decree-Law No. 91 of June 20, 2017 (Urgent provisions for economic growth in Southern Italy), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 123 of August 3, 2017, whose Article 4 (now repealed by Article 22 of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, also challenged), defined, in paragraph 2, the SEZ as «a geographically delimited and clearly identified area, located within the borders of the State, also consisting of non-territorially adjacent areas as long as they present a functional economic link, and including at least one port area with the characteristics established by Regulation (EU) No. 1315 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 11, 2013, on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)».

The establishment of the Single SEZ for the entire area of Southern Italy would, according to the Campania Region, produce «the unjustified and undue centralization of governance in an institution [...] crucial on an economic and social level, with consequent serious erosion of regional autonomy and, in general, of the prerogatives recognized by the Constitution to the Regions».

5.2.– First of all, Articles 5, 118, and 120 of the Constitution would be harmed, respectively, due to the violation of the needs for autonomy and decentralization of state legislation, the principles of subsidiarity, differentiation and adequacy, as well as the principle of loyal cooperation.

The harm of the latter, in particular, would emerge with clarity, in addition to the establishment of the Single SEZ, also from the provisions relating to the establishment and operation of the SEZ Steering Committee and the SEZ Task Force, governed by Article 10 of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, due to the «almost absolute omission of the levels of government closest to the territories concerned».

In particular, the concurrent regional legislative competence in the matter of land management referred to in Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution would be compressed, considering that the determination of conclusion of the service conference arranged pursuant to Article 15 of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, «[w]here necessary, [...] constitutes a variation to the urban planning instrument and involves the declaration of public utility, urgency, and non-deferral of the intervention» (paragraph 5).

In this way, the power of the SEZ Task Force to affect, through a detailed provision, the entire regional planning would be demonstrated, «being able, in the abstract, to always derogate from it with the issuing of the single authorization».

The appealing Region also observes that, according to the previous regulation, the single authorization was issued by a commissioner appointed, for each SEZ area, by the President of the Council of Ministers in agreement with the President of the Region concerned (Article 4, paragraph 6-bis, of Decree-Law No. 91 of 2017, as converted), while, according to the current regulation and subject to censures (Article 11, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted), the strategic plan of the SEZ is prepared by the Task Force, and the participation of the regions is indeed recalled therein, but «in the absence of any reference to the effective and concrete methods of involvement of the territorial bodies concerned».

Even such a provision, due to the fact that it does not provide for an adequate collaborative link with the Campania Region, would therefore harm the concurrent legislative competence of the same in the matters of «land management», «support for innovation in the production sectors», and «ports and civil airports», referred to in Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution.

5.3.– Finally, the establishment of the Single SEZ would be in contrast with Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution, with consequences that would spill over into the regional attributions referred to in Articles 5, 117, 118, and 119 of the Constitution.

According to the appealing Region, the ratio pursued by the regulation on SEZs would be to remedy the disadvantages of some areas of the Country for equalization purposes, in compliance with the principle of equality referred to in Article 3 of the Constitution. To this end, the powers of derogation and administrative simplification attributed to the Government should have been exercised «according to the specific needs of the reference territory, in order to guarantee, on the basis of a concrete analysis of the needs and potential of the place, better management in terms of industrial policy and economic development».

However, such purposes would currently be pursued only in relation to the Simplified Logistics Zones (SLZ) referred to in Article 1, paragraphs 61 and following, of Law No. 205 of December 27, 2017 (State Budget for the Financial Year 2018 and Multi-Year Budget for the Three-Year Period 2018-2020), established «[i]n order to promote the creation of favorable conditions for the development of new investments in the port areas of the most developed regions» and to which continues to be applied – pending the issuance of the decree of the President of the Council of Ministers provided for by Article 1, paragraph 65, of Law No. 205 of 2017 – the regulatory discipline relating to the previous SEZs, referred to in the decree of the President of the Council of Ministers No. 12 of January 25, 2018, entitled «Regulation containing the establishment of Special Economic Zones (SEZ)».

And in fact, the Region further observes, even the draft decree of the President of the Council of Ministers implementing Article 1, paragraph 65, of Law No. 205 of 2017 would reproduce the contents of the original regulatory structure of the SEZs, with the recognition of broad margins of competence on the part of the regions.

From this would follow «a blatant regulatory asymmetry between the developed Regions and those of Southern Italy, which are illegitimately excluded [...] from very relevant proceedings in terms of industrial policy and economic development».

6.– By act filed on February 23, 2024, the President of the Council of Ministers was established in the proceedings, represented and defended by the State Attorney General's Office, requesting that the appeal be declared inadmissible and, in any case, unfounded.

6.1.– The State Attorney General's Office notes, preliminarily, the inadmissibility of the appeal reason concerning Article 1, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, in the part in which it introduced letter d) in Article 1, paragraph 178, of Law No. 178 of 2020.

First of all, it would not be clear how the violation of Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution is reflected on the regional legislative competences, given that the Campania Region seems to complain about a generic irrationality of the challenged provisions, without indicating profiles of violation of the aforementioned constitutional parameters.

Nor would the reference to the concurrent legislative competence in the matter of «coordination of public finance» be pertinent, considering that the regulation relating to policies and, in particular, to cohesion funds would pertain both to the state legislative competence referred to in Article 119, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution and to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution with reference to the equalization of financial resources, and, lastly, to Article 117, second paragraph, letter a), of the Constitution, in relation to the relations of the State with the European Union in light of the obligations arising from the implementation of the commitments undertaken with the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP).

In any case, the appeal of the Campania Region would stem from an incorrect interpretation of the challenged provision, considering that the phrase «having taken note of the results of the previous programming cycles» would not subordinate the signing of the cohesion agreement to the results of the previous cycles, but would simply provide that said agreement «should simply "take note” of such results», responding to a criterion of good administration that, in planning public interventions, acknowledges what has been achieved, what is in progress, and the objectives that have not been or will not be achieved.

That this is the correct interpretation, moreover, would be derived – according to the State Attorney General's Office – from the fact that, while in its original text the provision in question provided that the results achieved had to be «taken into account», during the conversion, the less demanding requirement to «take note» of them was reached, thus taking up the requests from the regions.

In any case, the further premise from which the appeal stems would be erroneous, according to which it would not be possible to operate an exhaustive recognition of the results achieved in the previous programming cycle during the programming of the new cycle, considering that what the parties will have to take note of are «those results that will be available at that moment, consistent with the reporting rules and with the timing of each programming cycle».

In any case, it would remain up to the negotiating will of the parties to establish whether and what relevance to attribute to such results in the programming of the 2021-2027 cycle.

6.2.– Even the appeal reason relating to Article 2, paragraph 4, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, would be inadmissible, given the generality of the detected negative effects on regional attributions.

Moreover, the appeal would not consider that cohesion policies do not affect the concurrent legislative competence in the matter of «coordination of public finance», instead being based on the exclusive legislative competence of the State referred to in Articles 119, fifth paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution (the judgments No. 123 of 2022 and No. 187 of 2021 of this Court are referred to on this point).

The monitoring of the effective use of the allocated resources and the provision of the possibility of defunding in case of their non-use would, in any case, respond to the need to deal with the sedimented inefficiencies of the cohesion policy system and would not depart from the legislation adopted by the European Union, in relation to the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), from Article 136 of Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of December 17, 2013, laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006.

Furthermore, a similar possibility of defunding was already contained in the regulation of the previous Development and Cohesion Plan referred to in Article 44, paragraph 7-bis, of Decree-Law No. 34 of April 30, 2019 (Urgent measures for economic growth and for the resolution of specific crisis situations), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 58 of June 28, 2019, which also responded to the purpose of allocating the resources of the Fund more efficiently in order to strengthen the general spending capacity and ensure the achievement of general objectives in favor of the particular territories identified.

Nor would the Campania Region have reason to complain about the fact that the delay, and the subsequent defunding, may result from reasons not attributable to it, considering that Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, already provides effective instruments to reschedule the commitments made in case of delays due to objective reasons, such as the possibility of modifying the schedule contemplated by Article 1, paragraph 3, also in case of exceeding the annual deadline not met by the appealing Region.

Even the prohibition that the defunded resources be intended for re-employment by the originally assigned administration would respond to the configuration of cohesion policies as a "special" state financial intervention, considering that the automatic reallocation would determine an inefficient allocation of resources intended for the pursuit of equalization purposes, unlike what is provided by the challenged provision, which establishes the reallocation with incentive functions in order to encourage the virtuous regions in the use of resources, in accordance with the principle of good performance of administrative action.

6.3.– With regard to the appeal reasons relating to the establishment and operation of the Single SEZ for Southern Italy, the respondent preliminarily objects to its inadmissibility, considering that the challenged provisions are generically and indistinctly recalled, without indicating, in relation to each article, the necessary profiles of constitutional illegitimacy.

In any case, the alleged appeal reasons would be unfounded.

Premised, in fact, that the ratio underlying the establishment of the Single SEZ is that of adopting a systemic and integrated solution for the planning of interventions to support businesses in Southern Italy, overcoming the previous regulation focused on the territorial coincidence with the port authorities, the respondent disputes that the basis for this legislative intervention should be identified in the areas of concurrent legislative competence identified in the appeal, instead resting on the special interventions referred to in Article 119, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution and on the equalization purposes referred to in Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, as well as on relations with the European Union (Article 117, second paragraph, letter a), of the Constitution), as evidenced by the fact that the introduction of the Single SEZ is among the reforms envisaged by the NRRP (Mission 5, Component 3, on special interventions for territorial cohesion) and therefore represents one of the specific commitments undertaken by Italy with the European Union.

6.3.1.– With reference to the regulation of the governance of the Single SEZ, the state defense notes that the tasks of direction, coordination, supervision, and monitoring are entrusted by Article 10 of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, to a Steering Committee, which includes all the presidents of the regions concerned, in addition to the competent ministers, the president of the Union of Italian Provinces, and the president of the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI).

The fundamental instrument in which the policy of programming the Single SEZ is articulated, represented by the strategic plan referred to in Article 11 of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, is prepared by the Task Force with the guarantee that (paragraph 2) «the full participation of the regions concerned» is safeguarded and is approved by decree of the President of the Council of Ministers after obtaining the opinion of the Steering Committee.

In this way, a «double participation» for the regions would be safeguarded, called upon to give their contribution both during the preparation phase and during the approval phase of the aforementioned plan.

The solution that establishes the Task Force at the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and excludes – unlike what happened in the past for the extraordinary commissioners of the SEZs – the need for an agreement with the regions could not be considered constitutionally illegitimate.

To support the constitutional legitimacy of the regulation referred to in the challenged articles would be the acknowledgment that the establishment of a Single SEZ for the whole of Southern Italy necessarily requires that the investigative, implementation, and monitoring tasks be carried out ensuring the continuity over time of administrative functions, the containment of expenditure, and the uniformity of procedures for interpreting and applying the legislation. Nor, moreover, would it be possible to envisage reaching an agreement with eight different regions.

6.3.2.– There would be no violations of regional legislative competences even in relation to the regulation of the simplified administrative procedure focused on the «Digital Single Window SEZ – S.U.D. SEZ» (Article 13) and on the related procedural rules referred to in Articles 14 and 15 of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted.

First of all, the State Attorney General's Office observes that the administrative simplification entrusted, as in this case, to the establishment of a "single window" does not necessarily eliminate the competences of the individual administrations involved, whose contribution flows into the procedural process through the service conference.

In the case in point, the administrative simplification connected with the establishment of the Single SEZ would not have the general scope that the appealing Region fears, since it would operate only in relation to the proceedings identified by the strategic plan in order to support certain economic activities or to promote the establishment of specific productive activities (according to what can be derived from Articles 13, paragraph 2, and 14, paragraphs 1, second sentence, and 2, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted), and the proceedings in the matters identified by Articles 14, paragraph 1, first sentence, and 15, paragraph 8-bis, of the same decree-law would in any case be excluded therefrom.

Even within the perimeter defined by the strategic plan, in the event that there are proceedings that require an environmental impact assessment under regional jurisdiction (Article 15, paragraph 5) or under the jurisdiction of the port system authorities (Article 15, paragraph 7), the Task Force would relinquish the role of administering authority.

With regard to the ordinary procedural methods in view of the adoption of the single authorization, they are focused on the service conference, both in its simplified version and – possibly – in the simultaneous one. In it, the positions expressed, in particular, by the regions and local authorities concerned would be destined to find a synthesis, considering that the administering authority must explicitly take into consideration «the potential impacts in the implementation of the project or intervention object of the request» (Article 15, paragraph 4, letter b).

The specific consideration given to environmental interests and, in particular, the safeguarding of the legislation in force regarding environmental impact assessment within the single authorization procedure (Articles 14, paragraph 1, and 15, paragraph 5) would also lead to the belief that the eventuality that the final provision of the service conference determines a variation of the urban planning instrument does not necessarily eliminate the regional competences, which are still called upon to express themselves fully, albeit in a different procedural context.

The respect for the procedural guarantees connected with the service conference, therefore, would safeguard the needs for loyal cooperation asserted by the appealing Region, thus demonstrating the unfoundedness of the appeal reasons.

7.– In the proximity of the public hearing, the Campania Region filed a brief and produced documentation, insisting on the conclusions stated in the introductory appeal.

The Region contests, preliminarily, the inadmissibility of the appeal objected by the State Attorney General's Office with regard to the appeal reasons concerning letter d) of the amended Article 1, paragraph 178, of Law No. 178 of 2020, identifying its basis in the violation of its legislative attributions in the matter of coordination of public finance (Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution) and contesting its appurtenance to Article 119, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution, due to the ordinary (and not additional) nature of the expenses financed by cohesion funds.

On the merits, the regional defense observes that the interpretation of the phrase contained in the challenged provision would be far from clear, as the State Attorney General's Office believes, and would instead have seriously undermined the planning activity of the regions, as would be demonstrated – in the case of the Campania Region – by note No. 3738 of December 12, 2023, of the Minister for European Affairs, Southern Italy, Cohesion Policies and the NRRP, with which the delay in the completion of some projects financed with the Development and Cohesion Fund (DCF) was unexpectedly stigmatized to justify the failure to stipulate the cohesion agreement.

Even the provision contained in Article 2, paragraph 4, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, would be detailed and would illegally affect the scope of legislative competence in the matter of «coordination of public finance», in which the state intervention must be considered limited to provisions of a principle nature.

The violation of this and the other constitutional parameters deduced in the appeal would derive, in this case, from the randomness of the conditions that allow for defunding interventions already assigned to the Region, without the possibility of taking into account the non-imputability of the reasons for the delay to the regional administration. Nor would the possibility – evoked by the State Attorney General's Office – of renegotiating the times for the completion of the projects be relevant, considering that this possibility, provided for by Article 1, paragraph 3, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, would pertain to the programming phase during the stipulation of the cohesion agreement, while the challenged provision would concern the execution phase of the schedule.

7.1.– On September 20, 2024, the regional defense filed the deliberation of the same date No. 469 of the Regional Council of Campania to waive the appeal limited only to Article 9 of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, following the issuance of the decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of August 6, 2024, with which the coordinator of the SEZ Task Force was appointed with consequent start of the related activities.

Considered in law

1.– With the appeal indicated in the heading (reg. rec. No. 2 of 2024), the Campania Region challenged several provisions contained in Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, and specifically Articles 1, paragraph 1 – in the part that replaces Article 1, paragraph 178, letters d) and i), of Law No. 178 of 2020 –, 2, paragraph 4, from 9 to 15 and 22, with reference to multiple constitutional parameters.

The complex of appeal reasons can be divided into two distinct thematic areas.

1.1.– With a first set of censures, the Campania Region challenged some provisions contained in Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, concerning the reform of cohesion policies and the related programming cycle for the period 2021-2027.

Among these, Article 1, paragraph 1, of the aforementioned decree-law is challenged in the part in which, by fully replacing the current regulation contained in Article 1, paragraph 178, of Law No. 178 of 2020, it established that the Cohesion Agreement (an instrument that replaces the previous Development and Cohesion Pacts, DCP) is to be stipulated by the Minister for European Affairs, Southern Italy, Cohesion Policies and the NRRP and by the President of the region concerned «having taken note of the results of the previous programming cycles» (letter d).

The same Article 1, paragraph 1, is also challenged in the part in which, by replacing the wording of Article 1, paragraph 178, letter i), of Law No. 178 of 2020, it established that, in order to cope with any liquidity shortages, the resources of the DCF already allocated and not yet used, «may be reallocated for an intervention owned by another administration, the implementation of which is of an urgent nature», after consulting with the administration owning the defunded intervention.

The appealing Region also challenges Article 2, paragraph 4, of Decree-Law No. 124 of 2023, as converted, in the part in which it provides that, during the execution of the Cohesion Agreement, failure to comply with the annual expenditure schedule results in defunding for an amount corresponding to the difference between the planned annual expenditure and the payments made and that the related defunded amounts are again assigned by the Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning and Sustainable Development (CIPESS) according to criteria of reward.

These provisions are challenged, complaining, overall, about the violation, direct or by redundancy, of Articles 3, 5, 81, 97, 117, 118, 119, and 120 of the Constitution, because they would affect the planning,