Attached to Judgment No. 119 of 2024:

Order delivered at the hearing of April 9, 2024

ORDER

Having examined the case files relating to the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Articles 3, paragraph 2; 5; 7; 8, paragraphs 1, 6 and 9; 10; 11; 13, paragraph 6; 14, paragraphs 3 and 5; 16; 18; 19, paragraph 1; 20; 21, paragraphs 1 and 3; 34; 36; 40; 41; 42; 47 and 48 of the Piedmont Regional Law of May 31, 2022, No. 7 (Simplifying provisions in urban planning and building matters), brought by the appeal registered at No. 54 of the 2022 appeal register, pursuant to the resolution of the Council of Ministers adopted at its meeting on July 28, 2022, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 40, first special series, of the year 2022.

Having noted that Fabrizio Taricco Costruzioni srl (hereinafter also: the Company) intervened in the proceedings, with a document filed out of time, on March 19, 2024;

that the Company claims that its interest in intervening arose long after the expiration of the deadline established by the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court;

that, in fact, said deadline expired on October 25, 2022, and, however, the interest in intervention allegedly arose only subsequently, during an administrative dispute and, more precisely, on the occasion of the hearing held before the Council of State on March 7, 2024, during which the Company became aware of the pendency of these constitutional proceedings;

that the Company's intervention should, in any case, be considered "receivable, in order to protect its subjective position, which would suffer very serious prejudice (in the order of approximately 10 million euros [...]) from the declaration of unconstitutionality of the challenged regional legislation", also taking into account the fact that the constitutional proceedings "have lasted for a year and a half, with the consequent application of the challenged provisions and the arising of subjective legal situations on the part of third parties";

that, in the opinion of the intervener, the position of this Court, according to which participation in the main proceedings is reserved to holders of legislative powers, also confirmed following the amendments to the Supplementary Rules, deserves "reconsideration, for several reasons";

that, in particular, the Company would be "directly affected by the constitutional proceedings", since the declaration of unconstitutionality of the challenged regional law "would prejudice the building permit obtained", and, therefore, would have the right to intervene, "even more so, in light of the extension of intervention in incidental proceedings to "amici curiae" (Article 4-ter Supplementary Rules)";

that, if the intervention were deemed inadmissible or irreceivable, Articles 24, 103, 111, 113 and 117 of the Constitution, as well as Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee the effectiveness of judicial protection and the principles of due process, would be violated;

that, consequently, in the event that this Court deems the intervention inadmissible or irreceivable, in the opinion of the Company, it should nevertheless suspend these proceedings to refer the matter, as a preliminary ruling, to the Court of Justice of the European Union, so that it may rule on whether Article 47 of the CFRUE allows the exclusion "from main constitutional proceedings of the intervention of a party, in relation to whose legal sphere the possible judgment of unconstitutionality of the challenged law would have a direct impact";

that, therefore, the Company requests that the admissibility of the intervention, aimed at supporting the unfoundedness of the questions of constitutional illegitimacy raised by the appeal registered at No. 54 of the 2022 appeal register, be declared, and, subsidiarily, that a preliminary question be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union, under the aforementioned terms.

Considering that, irrespective of the issue concerning the timeliness or otherwise of the intervention, this Court has repeatedly affirmed, also following the reform of the aforementioned Supplementary Rules, that the proceedings concerning constitutional legitimacy in the principal proceedings take place exclusively between subjects holding legislative power and do not allow the intervention of subjects lacking such power (ex plurimis, Judgments No. 76 of 2023, No. 259 of 2022 and hearing order delivered at the hearing of February 25, 2020 and attached to Judgment No. 56 of 2020);

that the principal proceedings do not arise from a concrete dispute with respect to which the interest of specific parties may be configured, but rather concern the abstract conformity to the Constitution of the challenged law;

that, therefore, the right of defence of parties whose interests may be affected by the outcome of these proceedings is not considered in such proceedings;

that, in any case, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is irrelevant in these proceedings for the overriding reason that the challenged legislation does not fall within the scope of application of European Union law (Article 51 CFRUE);

that, therefore, the intervention of Fabrizio Taricco Costruzioni srl must be declared inadmissible.

For these Reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares the intervention in the proceedings of Fabrizio Taricco Costruzioni srl inadmissible.

Signed: Augusto Antonio Barbera, President