Order rendered at the hearing of October 15, 2024, appended to Judgment No. 172 of 2024

ORDER

Having examined the documents pertaining to the proceedings concerning the challenge to the constitutionality of Article 1 of Law No. 6 of the Sicilian Regional Legislature of July 5, 2023 (Provisions concerning the transitional elections of the bodies of wide-area entities), initiated by the Regional Administrative Court for Sicily, First Section, by order of February 14, 2024 (Register No. 51 of 2024). Having noted that, by document filed on April 8, 2024, F.M. D. intervened in the constitutional challenge proceedings. Considering that F.M. D. claimed to have intervened in the a quo proceedings on March 22, 2024, therefore after the initiation of the constitutional challenge and the suspension of the a quo proceedings, thus he cannot be considered to have acquired the status of a party in said proceedings, a status which would entitle him to participate in the constitutional proceedings (Judgments No. 228 of 2022, point 3.1. of the "Reasons", and No. 171 of 2022, point 2 of the "Reasons"); that the arguments raised in court by the intervener concerning the position of the party who remained in default in the a quo proceedings are irrelevant, as said party is undoubtedly already a party in those proceedings; that the reference to the preliminary ruling proceedings is also irrelevant, as it does not necessarily determine the suspension of the main proceedings, thus making it possible to acquire the status of an intervener therein; that, therefore, the principles governing the intervention in incidental proceedings of parties other than those of the a quo proceedings must be applied to the position of F.M. D.; that, according to these principles, the intervention of parties extraneous to the main proceedings is admissible only when they are third parties holding a qualified interest, directly and immediately related to the substantive matter in dispute (Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court) (ex plurimis, orders appended to Judgments No. 39 and No. 22 of 2024 and No. 206 of 2019), it being understood that "proceedings" refers to the a quo proceedings, and not the incidental constitutional challenge proceedings; that the a quo proceedings concern the legality of numerous decrees of the President of the Sicilian Region, appointing or extending the term of the Commissioner for the Free Municipal Consortium of Enna: a subject matter in dispute with respect to which F.M. D. does not have an "immediate and direct" interest, given that he is also registered on the electoral rolls of Aci Castello, a municipality belonging to the territorial area of the Metropolitan City of Catania and not to the Free Municipal Consortium of Enna; that the status of a citizen registered on the Sicilian electoral rolls, as such "interested in the structure of the institutional bodies in which the circuit of representation and political responsibility is expressed at all levels of government, starting from the local one", is not sufficient to legitimize the intervention of F.M. D., since this status is no different from that of all other Sicilian electors; that no elements to the contrary can be drawn from Judgment No. 1 of 2014 of this Court, cited by F.M. D., since, in that judgment, the fundamental nature of the right to vote and the need to recognize the review of this Court also on electoral laws, so as to avoid creating "a no-go area in the system of constitutional justice", are cited in order to assess the relevance of questions of constitutionality raised by the referring judge on such laws, and not the admissibility of the intervention before this Court of third parties, who could not in any case introduce autonomous questions of constitutionality or broaden the scope of those raised by the a quo judge; that the fact that F.M. D. initiated, by means of an application for ascertainment of his right to participate in the constitution of the governing body of the Metropolitan City of Catania, the proceedings in which the questions of constitutionality defined by this Court in Judgment No. 240 of 2021 were raised, and therefore being interested in "defining the effectiveness" of this judgment, does not found the legitimacy of F.M. D.'s intervention, as this interest is in no way attributable to the aforementioned provision of Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules; that the references by F.M. D. to Judgment No. 294 of 2011, which contains no provision contrary to the consistent jurisprudence of this Court, now incorporated in the aforementioned Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules, on the admissibility of the intervention of third parties in constitutional challenge proceedings, are also irrelevant; that, likewise, the reference to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of June 23, 1993, Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, which concerns only the procedural rights, in the incidental constitutional challenge proceedings, of parties who are at the same time parties to the main proceedings, is irrelevant; that, in conclusion, the intervention of F.M. D. must be declared inadmissible.

For these reasons

The Constitutional Court

declares the intervention in the proceedings of F.M. D. inadmissible. Signed: Augusto Antonio Barbera, President