JUDGMENT NO. 149

YEAR 2025

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,

has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the dispute concerning conflict of attribution between public entities, arising from the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Cagliari of May 28, 2025, No. 848, initiated by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia with an appeal served on June 27, 2025, filed with the Registry on the same date, registered under No. 5 of the register of conflicts between public entities of 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 28, special first series, of the year 2025.

Having considered the statement of constitution of the President of the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Justice;

Having considered the statement of intervention of Riccardo Fercia on his own behalf;

having heard Judge Rapporteur Maria Rosaria San Giorgio at the public hearing of September 24, 2025;

having heard the lawyers Omar Chessa and Antonio Saitta for the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, as well as the State Attorney Fabrizio Fedeli for the President of the Council of Ministers;

deliberated in the council chamber on September 24, 2025.

Facts Considered

1.– With the appeal of June 27, 2025, registered under No. 5 of the register of conflicts between public entities of 2025, the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, in the person of the acting Vice-President, brought a conflict of attribution against the State (and, for it, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers), the Ordinary Court of Cagliari, in the person of the acting President, and the Ministry of Justice, in the person of the acting Minister, requesting this Court to declare that it was not within the competence of the State and, for it, the Court of Cagliari, to determine, with the judgment of May 28, 2025, No. 848, that "'the ascertainment of the violation of the rules on electoral expenses', carried out in the aforementioned judgment, 'remains unchallengeable by the Regional Council, [when] the latter shall take its decisions on forfeiture, holding as established what has been ascertained in this forum'.”

1.1.– The judgment of the Court of Cagliari decided, at the first instance, a civil proceeding initiated under the procedure set forth in art. 281-decies of the Code of Civil Procedure, concerning ineligibility and electoral sanctions pursuant to art. 22 of Legislative Decree No. 150 of September 1, 2011 (Complementary provisions to the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the reduction and simplification of cognitive civil proceedings, pursuant to Article 54 of Law No. 69 of June 18, 2009). The proceeding concerned the challenge by Alessandra Todde – already proclaimed elected President of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia following the regional elections held on February 25, 2024 – of the injunction order issued against her on December 20, 2024, by the Regional Electoral Guarantee College established at the Court of Appeal of Cagliari.

This injunction order, following the ascertainment of a series of irregularities concerning Alessandra Todde with regard to electoral expenses, had imposed an administrative financial penalty on her, pursuant to Articles 7 and 15 of Law No. 515 of December 10, 1993 (Regulation of electoral campaigns for the election to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic), as referenced by Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 5, paragraph 3, of the Law of the Region of Sardinia of January 27, 1994, No. 1

(Rules for the regulation, transparency, and containment of expenses for the election campaign for the election of the Regional Council and repeal of Regional Law No. 32 of May 16, 1984). Furthermore, in the reasoning of the measure, the Regional Electoral Guarantee College had observed that, "given the ascertained violation of the rules governing the election campaign,” "forfeiture from office of the elected candidate [was] required” and, in the operative part, had ordered "the transmission of this injunction order to the President of the Regional Council for what is within his purview regarding the adoption of the measure of forfeiture of Todde Alessandra from the office of President of the Region of Sardinia.”

The Court of Cagliari dismissed the appeal filed by Alessandra Todde, which was articulated both regarding the financial penalty imposed and the "proposed forfeiture” from the office of President of the Region.

1.2.– In the present dispute, the Autonomous Region of Sardinia seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Court of Cagliari limited to the words, quoted above, found in point 16 of the reasoning.

In support of its request, the Autonomous Region alleges the violation of constitutional and statutory parameters. Specifically invoked are Articles 24, second paragraph, 97, second and third paragraphs, 102, first paragraph, 104, first paragraph, 111, first and second paragraphs, 113, last paragraph, 116, first paragraph, 118, first paragraph, and 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution, as well as "Article 6 of the ECHR in reference to Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution.” Furthermore, the violation of Articles 6, 15, and 19 of the Constitutional Law of February 26, 1948, No. 3 (Special Statute for Sardinia), also in conjunction with Articles 1 and 22 of the Regional Statutory Law of November 12, 2013, No. 1 (Statutory electoral law pursuant to Article 15 of the Special Statute for Sardinia), Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the Regional Council of Sardinia, and Article 6 of the Decree of the President of the Republic of May 19, 1949, No. 250 (Implementing provisions for the Special Statute for Sardinia) is alleged.

1.3.– In fact, the appellant Region reports excerpts from the injunction order of the Regional Electoral Guarantee College, asserting that, with this measure, the collegiate body had "ordered” the Sardinian Regional Council to pronounce the forfeiture of Alessandra Todde from the office of President of the Region. It recalls having filed before this Court, against the said order, an appeal for a conflict of attribution between public entities, registered under No. 2 of the register of conflicts between public entities of 2025.

The appellant further reports that, with the judgment impugned herein, the Court of Cagliari confirmed the imposition of the financial penalties, finding all the contested violations to be well-founded. As for the sanction of forfeiture, the judgment noted that "the challenged measure did not order forfeiture but, deeming that the ascertained violations entailed such a consequence, ordered the transmission of the acts to the President of the Regional Council,” to whom the competence to rule on the forfeiture of Todde Alessandra from the office of President of the Region of Sardinia was reserved.

In the final part of the reasoning, at point 16, the Court of Cagliari stated that "the ascertainment of the violation of the rules on electoral expenses,” carried out in the judgment, "remains unchallengeable by the Regional Council” and that the latter "shall take its decisions on forfeiture, holding as established what has been ascertained in this forum.” These statements, according to the appellant, determine "an unacceptable intrusion into the constitutionally inherent powers of the Region of Sardinia, and exercised for it by the Regional Council.”

1.4.– In law, the Autonomous Region states that it does not intend to challenge the decision of the Court of Cagliari regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the grievances raised by Alessandra Todde in that forum. Rather, it intends to challenge only the aforementioned final part of the judgment, where it was held that, vis-à-vis the Regional Council, "what was established in the same judgment remains unchallengeable.”

The appellant summarizes the relevant legal framework, citing the special nature of Sardinian regional autonomy, pursuant to Articles 116, first paragraph, and 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution, and affirms that the competence of the Regional Council to declare the forfeiture of its members (expressly provided for by art. 6 of D.P.R. No. 250 of 1949) has a "certainly administrative nature,” with references also to constitutional jurisprudence. Consequently, pursuant to the "principle of parallelism between legislative and administrative powers,” the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, as the holder of legislative competence in the matter, would also hold the "administrative power regarding the ascertainment of grounds for ineligibility and incompatibility.”

In this context, while recognizing that "any future determinations of the Regional Council regarding hypotheses of ineligibility and forfeiture of Alessandra Todde are subject to judicial review, if challenged before a jurisdictional authority,” the appellant Region reproaches the Court of Cagliari for having intervened "‘upstream’,” that is, before the review entrusted to the Regional Council, advancing "the claim to direct, with a judgment rendered in a civil proceeding inter alios, the future administrative activity of the regional representative assembly, pre-binding it to what has already been ascertained in the judgment.”

Furthermore, the judgment would have involved an evident contradiction – in addition to the infringement of the aforementioned regional attributions – in the part where it stated that "'it is not within the competence of the Guarantee College nor that of the Court seized for the challenge of the injunction order to rule on the eventual forfeiture of the appellant. Competence is reserved by law to the Regional Council' [...], only to immediately thereafter deny the Council the power to ascertain the facts and attribute the correct legal qualification to them.” If the first statement is to be considered correct, the appellant Region observes, then the collegiate body "cannot be denied the plena cognitio regarding the ascertainment of facts and their legal qualification,” without constraints deriving from a judicial ruling to which the Region itself was a stranger.

The present conflict is asserted to have a "constitutional tone,” as it concerns a case of mismanagement or abuse of power, with undue interference in the constitutional sphere of competence of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia. In fact, the judgment of the Court of Cagliari would demonstrate "the will to predetermine the outcome of the Council's judgment right from the investigative phase,” proceeding from "the conviction of being able to exercise said power, thereby claiming to guide the exercise of the collegiate competence without title,” and, as such, would constitute an act capable of triggering an intersubjective conflict. The judgment repeatedly cited would be "not only invalid in se, as contrary to the existing legislative provisions and in conflict with norms of constitutional rank,” but also "in se, because it expresses, precisely, the will and the claim to impose upon the Regional Council the adoption of the forfeiture measure according to the lines predetermined in the judgment.”

1.4.1.– The lack of competence of the State to bind the decisions of the Regional Council regarding the forfeiture of Alessandra Todde is argued, first and foremost, based on the principles of due process, derived from Articles 24, second paragraph, and 111, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution, as well as "Article 6 of the ECHR, in reference to Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution”: principles that would find "expression in Article 2909 of the Civil Code,” which enunciates the principle of res judicata, limiting its effects to the parties to the judgment, their heirs, or successors in title. The judgment of the Court of Cagliari, therefore, could not "intimate anything to the Council.”

1.4.2.– From another perspective, it is argued that the claim of the Cagliari judge to render unchallengeable, by the Regional Council, the ascertainment carried out in the impugned judgment denies the "constitutional principle of separation between administration and jurisdiction,” as resulting from the "combined provisions of Articles 24, second paragraph, 97, first and second paragraphs [sic: second and third paragraphs], 102, first paragraph, 104, first paragraph, and 113, last paragraph, of the Constitution”: this, on the premise that collegiate activities of ascertainment and legal qualification of facts upon which effects such as ineligibility, incompatibility, and forfeiture of regional councilors depend have a "properly administrative nature.” The "sources that attribute this function to regional councils” are cited, and in particular, regarding the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, art. 5, paragraph 3, of Regional Law No. 1 of 1994, which provides that "[t]he communication referred to in paragraph 10 of Article 15 of Law No. 515 of 1993 [that of the Regional Electoral Guarantee College relating to the final ascertainment of violations referred to in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the same Article 15] is addressed to the President of the Regional Council, who orders the forfeiture pursuant to its own regulations.” Even if one considers that this provision was repealed by art. 22, paragraph 2, of Statutory Law No. 1 of 2013, which now makes "state laws” applicable in the matter of ineligibility and incompatibility until the approval of regional legislation pursuant to art. 15 of the Special Statute, art. 15, paragraph 10, of Law No. 515 of 1993 would still apply, to be read "in conjunction” with art. 4, letter g) – recte: art. 5, paragraph 4, letter g) – of Law No. 43 of February 23, 1995 (New rules for the election of the councils of ordinary status regions), from which it is inferred that the competence to order the forfeiture of its members belongs to the Regional Council, as would also be confirmed by art. 6 of D.P.R. No. 250 of 1949.

As administrative activity, that carried out by the Regional Council would fall within the scope of application of Articles 24, second paragraph, 97, second and third paragraphs, 102, first paragraph, 104, first paragraph, and 113, last paragraph, of the Constitution, with a consequent "regime of separation” from the jurisdictional function, which could not invade the sphere reserved to the administrative one. Constitutional jurisprudence is cited on this point, which – particularly with judgment No. 70 of 1985 – has denied judicial bodies the power to dictate the lines of regional administrative policy.

1.4.3.– Reaffirming the existence of the "constitutional tone” of the present conflict, the appellant Region also argues the violation of Article 15 of the Special Statute, insofar as it reserves to the regional legislator the regulation of cases of ineligibility.

1.4.4.– Article 19 of the same Autonomy Statute, which reserves the power to the Regional Council to adopt its own internal regulations, would also be violated. From Article 17 thereof (which regulates, inter alia, the collegiate powers regarding the examination of grounds for ineligibility and incompatibility), it should be inferred that "the activities of the Board and the Assembly for examination and proposal must be carried out in a ‘free’ manner, that is, by proceeding to autonomous evaluations of the facts and their legal qualification.”

1.4.5.– Given that, according to the jurisprudence of this Court, even the implementing provisions of special statutes can be invoked as the basis for an appeal for conflict of attribution, in the present case, Article 6 of D.P.R. No. 250 of 1949 is relevant, which reserves to the Regional Council (art. 6, second paragraph) the order of forfeiture of members of the Regional Executive Board "who find themselves in one of the conditions of incompatibility provided for by the Special Statute for Sardinia relating to the function of Regional Councilor” (art. 6, first paragraph).

Even if the judgment of the Court of Cagliari formally recognized the collegiate competence, it – the appeal observes – "does not seem to substantially recognize it,” having qualified its review as "unchallengeable” by the Regional Council.

1.5.– In the alternative, the appellant Region, "without this constituting a surreptitious challenge of the contested judgment,” then raises a further grievance in support of its appeal.

It is argued that the content of the ascertainment made by the Court of Cagliari, which is the subject of the alleged binding effect of unchallengeability, would also be "intrinsically detrimental to the powers constitutionally attributed to the Region” because, first of all, it is supported by an erroneous interpretative premise. Indeed, it cannot be held (as stated by the Court of Cagliari) that Regional Law No. 1 of 1994 is applicable not only to regional councilors but also to the President of the Region elected by universal and direct suffrage. In fact, it is observed that at the time of the entry into force of the aforementioned regional law, art. 36, first paragraph, of the Special Statute still provided for the election of the President of the Regional Executive Board by the Regional Council: consequently, "[t]he 1994 regulation […] did not and could not evidently contemplate the hypothesis that the President of the Region was an office directly, rather than indirectly, elected.” Once the direct election of the President of the Region was introduced in 2001, the position and status of the latter "differ significantly from that of the ‘common’ regional councilors” and, moreover, "a system of election prevails which is, evidently, different from that of the ‘common’ regional councilors under several aspects.” Consequently, the regional regulation on the reporting of electoral expenses, dating back to 1994, could not be applied to the directly elected President of the Region.

Furthermore, the appeal continues, that same regional regulation could not find application today based on what is established by art. 22, paragraph 2, of Statutory Law No. 1 of 2013, which refers – as regards the matter of ineligibility and incompatibility and pending the approval of regional legislation pursuant to art. 15 of the Special Statute – only to state laws. It would follow from this that art. 7, paragraph 6, of Law No. 515 of 1993 (the violation of which was contested by the judgment of the Court of Cagliari), together with the related sanctioning system, could not be considered referable to the electoral system of the Region of Sardinia, as Law No. 515 of 1993 itself, at art. 20, paragraph 1, excludes the applicability of that provision for elections of Regional Councils.

The reasoning of the Court of Cagliari would also be erroneous where it affirmed the full compatibility, with the changed form of regional government, of the combined provisions of Law No. 515 of 1993 and Regional Law No. 1 of 1994. This assertion would fail to consider "the specificity of the electoral system” for the election to the presidency of the Region, characterized by rules different from those in force for the election of regional councilors, and would not take into account the automatic operation of the "simul stabunt, simul cadent” mechanism, under Articles 15 and 35 of the autonomy statute, according to which events that determine the interruption of the mandate of one body automatically result in the termination of the other: a mechanism that the Court of Cagliari could not trigger.

2.– Riccardo Fercia, a member of the Electoral Guarantee College at the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, intervened in the dispute ad opponendum, assuming his own legal defense. However, during the public hearing for the discussion of the appeal, he declared his withdrawal from the intervention.

3.– The President of the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Justice constituted themselves in the proceedings, both represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, concluding for the rejection of the appeal of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia "as inadmissible or, in any case, manifestly unfounded.”

According to the State defense, the appeal would be inadmissible "as the alleged defects by the Region with respect to the judgment concluded by the judgment of the Court of Cagliari are capable of being qualified as defects deductible in appeal through the means of redress recognized by the legal system.”

Nor would the alleged violation of the prerogative, recognized to the Regional Council, to declare forfeiture from the elected office be conceivable. In fact – it is observed – the necessity for the collegiate body to take note of the violation of the rules governing the election campaign, as ascertained by the Regional Electoral Guarantee College, should be considered "as an immediate and direct consequence of that same principle of separation of powers which is assumed by the appellant as violated.” In fact, once the Regional Electoral Guarantee College has verified the electoral expense reports and ascertained violations, the judicial body is called upon to exercise its verification functions through measures capable of acquiring the authority of res judicata. Conversely, "it is up to [...] the elected assemblies to take note of the ascertainment itself and the resulting consequences.”

The collegiate power to order forfeiture would, therefore, be "ontologically bound by the ascertainment made in the jurisdictional forum, as an immediate and direct consequence of the physiological application of the principle of separation of powers, from which the exclusion of the excess of judicial power beyond its natural limits follows.”

The impugned judgment of the Court of Cagliari completely lacks a clear manifestation of the will to exceed the perimeter of jurisdiction, since the civil judge expressly recognized that "it is not within the competence of the Guarantee College nor that of the Court seized for the challenge of the injunction order to rule on the eventual forfeiture of the appellant” and that "[t]he competence is reserved by law to the Regional Council.” Conversely, the aspect relating to the ascertainment of the violation of the rules on electoral expenses could not be considered withdrawn from the Court.

The Regional Council, moreover, could not modify, with a "political vote,” the outcome of the ascertainments made in the jurisdictional forum, but rather has "a role of taking note and adopting the consequent administrative act of forfeiture.” Thus, the constitutional tone of the conflict would be lacking in the present case: in the opinion of the defending parties, "behind the apparent statement of an invasion of its legislative prerogatives, the Region limits itself to denouncing what could, at most, constitute an error in iudicando concerning the concrete exercise of jurisdiction and not its boundaries.” It is observed, moreover, that it was Alessandra Todde herself who implicitly recognized the jurisdiction of the Court of Cagliari, when she appealed against judgment No. 848 of 2025 and in that forum contested, on the merits, the very statements of the Court that are the object of the present conflict.

The Attorney General’s Office adds that, according to the constant jurisprudence of this Court, the conflict of attribution "can concern judicial acts provided that it does not result in an improper means of censure of the manner of exercising the judicial function, being admissible only when the very existence of the jurisdictional power vis-à-vis the appellant is contested in principle.”

4.– With a memorandum filed on September 3, 2025, the Autonomous Region of Sardinia presented further defenses.

4.1.– In reply to the inadmissibility objections raised by the State defense, the Region observes that the subject of the present proceeding is solely the "mismanagement of the jurisdictional function exercised in the specific case by the Court of Cagliari,” which, "in deciding a dispute in which it was not a matter of a measure by the Regional Council, intended to bind the latter in the exercise of its administrative attributions not yet activated.” Thus, what is being challenged is not an error in iudicando, but the "overflow of judicial power committed by the Court which, violating the objective and subjective limits of res judicata pursuant to art. 2909 of the Civil Code, has invaded and simultaneously diminished the administrative attributions of the Region protected by firm guarantees founded in the Constitution and the Sardinian Special Statute.” This would result in the violation of the principle of separation of powers, also canonized in art. 34, paragraph 2, of Annex 1 (Code of Administrative Procedure) to Legislative Decree No. 104 of July 2, 2010 (Implementation of Article 44 of Law No. 69 of June 18, 2009, providing for the delegation of the government for the reorganization of administrative procedure).

Even where the Court of Cagliari stated that the competence to declare forfeiture belongs to the Regional Council, this would constitute – in light of the statements subsequently made in the contested part of the judgment – "a merely formal recognition of an attribution that the same Court strips of any substantive value since, a few lines later, it denies the regional body any scope for autonomy in the exercise of its powers.”

Ultimately, according to the Region, as the "autonomy of the Regional Council in the exercise of its attributions in electoral matters” is at stake, there would be no risk "that the present appeal ‘results in an improper means of censure of the manner of exercising the judicial function’” (cf. Judgment No. 81 of 2012). Nor, in accordance with constitutional jurisprudence, would the circumstance that the judgment of the Court of Cagliari is currently sub iudice, as appealed before the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, be relevant.

4.2.– On the merits, the appellant emphasizes that its appeal, through the first ground, has asserted a very specific "profile of the principle of separation” between jurisdictional function and administrative function, namely "that which prohibits the judiciary from directing the performance of future administrative activities, unduly compressing the discretionary margin of evaluation of administrative bodies.” The power/duty of the judge to ascertain the validity of administrative acts following their challenge in the jurisdictional forum is not at issue. The opposing defense position would not be correct, as it fails to consider the "rule of subjective relativism of res judicata, which [...] prevents the judgment from producing effects towards those who were not parties to the proceeding.” The aspects of possible violation of the regional sphere of competence, by the injunction order issued by the Regional Electoral Guarantee College, could not have been the subject of legitimate ascertainment by the Cagliari judge, but were instead reserved for the cognizance of this Court through the parallel appeal registered under No. 2 of the register of conflicts between public entities of 2025.

The second ground for appeal, raised in the alternative, would also be well-founded, according to which the ascertainment made by the Court of Cagliari would be detrimental, in its content, to the constitutional sphere of competence of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia. In fact – it is stressed – the impugned ruling "assumes that the Council is bound to apply a judicial decision contrary to the law and constitutional norms.” Moreover, the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, not being a party to the civil proceeding, could not file an appeal. The Regional Council, "and, for this reason, the Region of Sardinia, would have no other opportunity to defend its attributions than by filing an appeal for an intersubjective conflict before this Esteemed Court.”

Legal Considerations

1.– The Autonomous Region of Sardinia (reg. confl. enti n. 5 of 2025) has brought a conflict of attribution against the State (and, for it, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers), the Court of Cagliari, in the person of the acting President, and the Ministry of Justice, in the person of the acting Minister, concerning the judgment of May 28, 2025, No. 848, with which the Court of Cagliari dismissed the appeal filed by Alessandra Todde – proclaimed elected to the office of President of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, following the regional elections of February 25, 2024 – against the injunction order issued against her by the Regional Electoral Guarantee College established at the Court of Appeal of Cagliari.

The appellant Region deems its constitutional prerogatives, concerning the competence of the Regional Council to declare forfeiture from regional elected offices, to be infringed, due to the statements contained in point 16 of the judgment, which states that "the ascertainment of the violation of the rules on electoral expenses,” carried out by the civil judge, "remains unchallengeable by the Regional Council, [when] the latter shall take its decisions on forfeiture, holding as established what has been ascertained in this forum.”

In this way, the State is deemed to have manifested, "unequivocally,” the claim to bind the collegiate body to what was ascertained in the judgment, directing its activity towards the aim of "ordering the sanction of forfeiture against the directly elected President of the Region and thereby determining the automatic dissolution of the Regional Council” through "the provision of the simul stabunt, simul cadent.”

Such a claim is deemed to infringe, first and foremost, Articles 24, second paragraph, and 111, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution, as well as "Article 6 of the ECHR, in reference to Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution,” whose principles find "expression in Article 2909 of the Civil Code,” which establishes the rule of res judicata, limiting its effects only to the parties to the judgment, their heirs, or successors in title. The judgment of the Court of Cagliari, rendered against Alessandra Todde and the Regional Electoral Guarantee College, could not "intimate anything to the Council,” as the latter was not a party to the case.

From another perspective, the Court is deemed to have violated the "constitutional principle of separation between administration and jurisdiction,” as resulting from the "combined provisions of Articles 24, second paragraph, 97, first and second paragraphs [sic: second and third paragraphs], 102, first paragraph, 104, first paragraph, and 113, last paragraph, of the Constitution”: this, on the premise that collegiate activities of ascertainment and legal qualification of facts capable of determining the forfeiture of regional councilors have a "properly administrative nature.” Administrative activity must remain separate from jurisdictional activity, so that the latter does not invade the sphere reserved to the former. Instead, the Court of Cagliari, through the contested passages of point 16 of the judgment, is deemed to have dictated the lines of regional administrative policy, thereby interfering in the activity incumbent upon the Regional Council.

Furthermore, Article 15 of the Special Statute, insofar as it reserves the regulation of cases of ineligibility to the regional legislator, and Article 19 of the same statute, which establishes the competence of the Regional Council to adopt its own internal regulations, are deemed to be infringed. From Article 17 thereof (which regulates, inter alia, the collegiate powers regarding the examination of grounds for ineligibility and incompatibility), it should be inferred that "the activities of the Board and the Assembly for examination and proposal must be carried out in a ‘free’ manner, that is, by proceeding to autonomous evaluations of the facts and their legal qualification.”

The Court of Cagliari is also deemed to have violated Article 6 of D.P.R. No. 250 of 1949, which contains the implementing provisions for the special statute. This parameter, although expressly referring to cases of incompatibility, confirms the collegiate competence in the matter of ineligibility, "considering that ‘the greater contains the lesser’.”

In the alternative, the appellant Region alleges that the State does not have the power – "under a different profile” – to bind the decisions of the Sardinian Regional Council "on the matter of the forfeiture of Dr. Alessandra Todde, President and member of the Regional Council, to what was decided by the Court of Cagliari with judgment No. 848 of 2025.” The infringement of the appellant Region’s constitutional powers also derives from the content of the ascertainment made by the Court, as it is based on a series of erroneous interpretative premises concerning the legislation applicable to the case. In particular, the Autonomous Region maintains that – contrary to what was held by the Court of Cagliari – Regional Law No. 1 of 1994 is no longer applicable, as it has been superseded by the new form of regional government centered on the direct, universal suffrage election of the President of the Region. Nor would the judgment have correctly grasped the meaning of the reference to state laws, under art. 22, paragraph 2, of Statutory Law No. 1 of 2013, which brings into play art. 20 of Law No. 515 of 1993: this provision, the Region observes, expressly excludes the applicability of Articles 7 and 15 of the same Law No. 515 of 1993 for regional elections, i.e., the rules applied by the Regional Electoral Guarantee College to bring contestations against Alessandra Todde. The reasoning of the Court, moreover, would not have taken into account the "specificity of the electoral system” for the election to the presidency of the Region, characterized by rules different from those in force for the election of regional councilors, nor would it have considered the automatic operation of the "simul stabunt, simul cadent” mechanism, under Articles 15 and 35 of the autonomy statute, according to which the events that determine the interruption of the mandate of one body automatically result in the termination of the other: a mechanism that the Court of Cagliari could not trigger.

2.– The State defense objected to the inadmissibility of the appeal as the Autonomous Region limited itself to denouncing mere errores in iudicando in the judgment of the Court of Cagliari.

3.– However, apart from the consideration that the Minister of Justice cannot, in principle, be a party to a conflict between the State and the regions (see Judgment No. 148 of the same date), there is a ground for inadmissibility whose examination constitutes a logical prerequisite to the aforementioned objection raised by the State Attorney General’s Office.

3.1.– It must be noted that this Court, with the cited Judgment No. 148 of 2025, upheld the appeal for a conflict of attribution between public entities promoted by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia and concerning the injunction order of December 20, 2024, issued by the Regional Electoral Guarantee College established at the Court of Appeal of Cagliari. This Court declared that it was not within the competence of the State and, for it, the Regional Electoral Guarantee College, to state, in the reasoning of the cited injunction order, that "forfeiture from office of the elected candidate is required” and, consequently, to order "the transmission of the present injunction order to the President of the Regional Council for what is within his purview regarding the adoption of the measure of forfeiture of Todde Alessandra from the office of President of the Region of Sardinia.”

The injunction order – to be understood, therefore, purged of this content, which resulted in a disturbance of the constitutionally protected regional autonomy – was confirmed by the Court of Cagliari regarding the financial penalty imposed on Alessandra Todde, the appellant against the same.

3.2.– It must then be considered that the civil judgment decided by the Court of Cagliari was introduced by Alessandra Todde personally, as the recipient of the sanctions imposed by the injunction order of December 20, 2024, against the administrative body that issued it (the Regional Electoral Guarantee College). With respect to this dispute, and the related thema decidendum, the collegiate body remained extraneous and, therefore, is not bound by the statements made by the adjudicator in point 16 of the reasoning, which are the subject of the complaints made, in this forum, by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia.

The requirement of the actuality of the alleged infringement constitutes a prerequisite for the admissibility of the conflict of attribution between State and regions, even when the challenged measure is a judicial act. According to the constant jurisprudence of this Court, relating to this hypothesis, "any significant conduct, attributable to the State or the Region, which has external effectiveness and relevance and which – even if preparatory or not final – is nevertheless clearly and unequivocally aimed at expressing the claim to exercise a given competence, the exercise of which may lead to an invasion of the sphere of attributions of others or, in any case, an equally current impairment of the possibilities of exercising the same, constitutes an act capable of triggering an intersubjective conflict of attribution” (ex plurimis, Judgment No. 332 of 2011; in the same sense Judgment No. 90 of 2022). It must, therefore, be an act that "concretely neglects the prerogative in question” (thus, again, Judgment No. 332 of 2011). This is in line with what this Court affirms, in general, for all conflicts of attribution between State and regions, which likewise require the requirement of the actuality of the infringement, which is not considered satisfied when the act lacks a binding effect for the party that challenged it (ex plurimis, in this sense, Judgments No. 340 of 2011 and No. 211 of 1994).

3.3.– In the present case, the requirement of the actuality of the alleged infringement is precisely lacking. The judgment of the Court of Cagliari was indeed pronounced on the claim of Alessandra Todde, ascertaining its lack of foundation. This ruling specifically refers to the procedural segment that took place before the state administrative control body, the Regional Electoral Guarantee College established at the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, concerning – as is peacefully evident from Law No. 515 of 1993 (art. 15, paragraph 7) – the ascertainment of violations, by the candidate, of the rules governing electoral campaign expenses. Other procedural segments, reserved by law to the competence of different administrative bodies, based in different public entities (the region), are not affected. There is no derivable nexus of prejudice and/or dependency capable of linking the statements contained in the judgment and the powers of the Regional Council, which – it should be recalled – has never formally ruled on the quaestio in this forum.

The contested statements in point 16 of the judgment of the Court of Cagliari, although objectively directed towards the Regional Council, must therefore be considered as obiter dictum, as they lack a decisive character. In fact, they go beyond the thema decidendum (as outlined by the judicial claim) and do not exercise any influence on the operative part of the decision, nor are they capable of passing into res judicata or being the subject of appeal (in this sense, among many others, Court of Cassation, second civil section, order of October 3, 2019, No. 24722; as for the administrative judgment, analogously, ex plurimis, Council of State, third jurisdictional section, judgment of March 3, 2023, No. 2246).

3.4.– It must therefore be concluded that the statements of the Court of Cagliari contested by the appellant Region do not determine a current infringement of its sphere of attribution, as they refer to a phase of the procedure for the declaration of forfeiture of Alessandra Todde from the office of President of the Region of Sardinia entirely extraneous to the subject matter of the dispute in the proceeding before the same Court, which concerned the order of the Electoral Guarantee College. This implies the original lack of interest in pursuing the present appeal, resulting in its inadmissibility.

4.– The appeal for conflict of attribution must therefore be declared inadmissible.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares inadmissible the appeal for conflict of attribution between public entities indicated in the heading.

So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on September 24, 2025.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Rapporteur

Valeria EMMA, Registrar

Filed in the Registry on October 15, 2025