Judgment No. 150 of 2025 - AI translated judgement

JUDGMENT NO. 150

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, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,

has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the constitutional legitimacy review concerning Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Law of the Umbria Region of March 6, 1998, n. 9, regarding "Provisions on the establishment and regulation of the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (A.R.P.A.)”, in the text preceding the amendments introduced by Article 16, paragraph 1, letter k), of the Law of the Umbria Region of August 1, 2024, n. 12 (Adjustment of the Budget Forecast of the Umbria Region 2024 - 2026 with amendments to regional laws), and Article 1 of the Law of the Umbria Region of December 21, 2022, n. 18 (Budget Forecast of the Umbria Region 2023-2025), promoted by the Court of Accounts, Regional Control Section for Umbria, in the equalization proceeding of the general statement of accounts of the Umbria Region for the financial year 2023, with order of January 15, 2025, registered under no. 31 of the ordinary register of orders 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 9, special first series, of the year 2025.

Having considered the intervening document of the Attorney General's Office at the Court of Accounts;

having heard in the Chamber of Council of September 22, 2025, the Reporting Judge Marco D’Alberti;

deliberated in the Chamber of Council of September 22, 2025.

Facts Considered

1.– The Court of Accounts, Regional Control Section for Umbria, in the equalization proceeding of the regional statement of accounts for the financial year 2023, by order of January 15, 2025, and registered under no. 31 of the ordinary register of 2025, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Law of the Umbria Region of March 6, 1998, n. 9, concerning "Provisions on the establishment and regulation of the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (A.R.P.A.)”, in the text preceding the amendments introduced by Article 16, paragraph 1, letter k), of the Law of the Umbria Region of August 1, 2024, n. 12 (Adjustment of the Budget Forecast of the Umbria Region 2024 - 2026 with amendments to regional laws). It also questioned the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1 of the Law of the Umbria Region of December 21, 2022, n. 18 (Budget Forecast of the Umbria Region 2023-2025), in the part where it confirmed, by virtue of the authorization provisions contained in the budget forecast law, the application of Article 16, paragraph 1, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998 also in the financial year 2023.

The questions are raised with reference to Articles 32, 81, 97, first paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letters e) and m), of the Constitution, the latter in relation to the interposed norm set out in Article 20 of Legislative Decree of June 23, 2011, n. 118 (Provisions concerning the harmonization of accounting systems and budget formats of Regions, local authorities, and their bodies, pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of Law of May 5, 2009, n. 42), as well as Article 119, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

2.– The referring court, after stating that it considers the standing of the regional control sections of the Court of Accounts to raise questions of constitutional legitimacy within the framework of the equalization proceeding of the regions' statement of accounts to be established, proceeds to illustrate Article 16 of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998.

It observes that this provision regulates the financing of the functions performed by the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (ARPA), established and regulated by the same regional law to implement State provisions regarding the reorganization of environmental controls, including, in particular, those of Decree-Law of December 4, 1993, n. 496 (Urgent provisions on the reorganization of environmental controls and establishment of the National Environmental Protection Agency), converted, with amendments, into Law of January 21, 1994, n. 61.

It adds that, as clarified by Article 15, paragraph 2, the financial resources of ARPA "consisted of the financial endowment annually allocated by the Region, pursuant to Article 16, the proceeds deriving from activities carried out on the basis of agreements with local authorities (Article 3, paragraphs 2 and 3) and with local health units (Article 4, paragraph 3), as well as revenues from services provided to third parties (Article 12, paragraph 2)".

The referring court notes that the provisions of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998 were subsequently aligned with the provisions of Law of June 28, 2016, n. 132 (Establishment of the National Network System for Environmental Protection and regulation of the Higher Institute for Environmental Protection and Research), through a detailed amendment operation carried out by the Law of the Umbria Region of July 16, 2020, n. 7, concerning "Further amendments and integrations to the Regional Law of March 6, 1998, n. 9 (Provisions on the establishment and regulation of the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (A.R.P.A.))”. Following this intervention, the financing model for the Agency's functions was confirmed, and no amendment was made to Article 16 of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998 on that occasion.

Finally, the referring judge states that Article 16, paragraph 1, letter k), of Regional Law Umbria no. 12 of 2024 entirely substituted Article 16 of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, identifying different sources for the financing of ARPA's activities. Following this legislative amendment, it was established that all functions and activities of the Agency "directly and indirectly associated with collective prevention and the control of health risks, the protection of health and safety in open and confined environments, related to the provision of LEPTA attributable to the essential levels of health care (LEA)" are financed through a quota of the Regional Health Fund.

3.– According to the referring court, the method of financing ARPA provided for by Article 16, paragraph 1, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, in the text preceding the amendments introduced by Regional Law Umbria no. 12 of 2024, allowed for an indistinct transfer of resources from the aforementioned Health Fund "[i]n anticipation of the determination by the State of the share of the national health fund to be allocated to the financing of regional environmental protection agencies" (thus Article 16, paragraph 1). These resources, in fact, were intended to support the "costs arising from the implementation of this law", and, therefore, generally all the tasks assigned to the Agency.

The mechanism, adds the referring court, "was confirmed through the application of the cited provision in subsequent financial years, including the year 2023, due to the authorization provisions contained in the budget forecast law (for the year in question, Article 1, Regional Law of December 21, 2022, n. 18) and, consequently, the specific indications contained in the related management budget forecast adopted pursuant to Article 39, paragraph 10, of Legislative Decree no. 118/2011 (in this case, D.G.R. no. 1351 of December 21, 2022)".

The referring court also notes that the general financing model thus outlined was supplemented, as an exception to the rule, by that provided for in Article 16, paragraph 2, of the same Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, which provided for the allocation of further resources from the regional budget determined by the Regional Executive, deriving from environmental taxes, community and state funds, for the performance of specific activities within ARPA's competence. The framework was therefore confirmed in Article 15, paragraph 2, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, which summarized the financial resources of the Agency, consisting of the financial endowment annually allocated by the Region, pursuant to Article 16, and the proceeds deriving from activities carried out on the basis of agreements with local authorities, local health authorities, and other public and private entities.

4.– The referring court then cites the judgment of this Court no. 1 of 2024, which declared the unconstitutionality of the Sicilian Region's law provision that, regulating the expenses for the operation of the local ARPA, stipulated that they could be covered, indistinctly, by the Regional Health Fund. This Court considered such a provision to be in violation of the fundamental principles concerning the harmonization of public budgets under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, in relation to the interposed norm set out in Article 20 of Legislative Decree no. 118 of 2011. The latter, in fact, requires the regions to ensure, within the budget, an exact demarcation of revenues and expenditures related to the financing of their regional health service, thus establishing the indispensable conditions for identifying and allocating resources pertaining to the essential levels of service (LEA), in order to avoid accounting opacity and undue diversion of funds intended to guarantee the essential levels of assistance (LEA).

The referring court believes that Article 16, paragraph 1, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998 is also in conflict with Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, in relation to the interposed norm set out in Article 20 of Legislative Decree no. 118 of 2011, "superveningly, as the normative text predates not only Legislative Decree no. 118/2011 but also the 2001 constitutional reform". This is because "the regional norm, in fact, does not introduce – nor could it have, when adopted – any correlation between the transfer of resources from the health fund to ARPA and the provision of services relating to LEA" and therefore superveningly alters the structure of the health perimeter prescribed by the aforementioned Article 20, thus frustrating the accounting harmonization objectives pursued by the state normative provision.

5.– The referring court also raises the violation, in relation to the same interposed norm, of Article 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, which reserves to the exclusive legislative competence of the State the determination of the essential levels of services concerning civil and social rights, and observes that "the right to health, protected by Article 32 of the Constitution, is to be included among these". The allocation of resources from the health perimeter for the general benefit of ARPA's operation would ultimately be capable of prejudicing the effective provision of LEA, undermining the protection of the right to health itself, by diverting resources intended for its guarantee to other purposes.

6.– The referring control section then deems that the violation of Articles 81, 97, first paragraph, and 119, first paragraph, of the Constitution, which guarantee budget balance and expenditure sustainability, is realized due to the expansion of ordinary spending capacity, which would derive from having allocated resources reserved for LEA to purposes extraneous to the perimeter, which the Region should have satisfied through ordinary budget resources.

7.– Neither is it possible to provide a constitutionally oriented interpretation of Article 16 of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, since the provision says nothing regarding the possible correlation between the aforementioned financing and the pursuit of LEA, or regarding the planning and reporting activities that allow the compliance with Article 20 of Legislative Decree no. 118 of 2011 to be considered as respected.

8.– As regards relevance, the Control Section asserts that the challenged provisions represent the legal basis upon which the Umbria Region, in the reference year, ordered a transfer of EUR 14,213,516.19 from the Regional Health Fund resources, intended to generally and indistinctly support the performance of the functions assigned to ARPA. Should these provisions be declared unconstitutional, it would result in "the illegitimacy of the expenditure ordered by the Region in favor of ARPA from Regional Health Fund resources and lacking correlation with the provision of LEA, with consequent exclusion from the passive items of the health perimeter" of the amount transferred for 2023.

It further adds that factual investigations have shown the generic allocation of said resources to ARPA's operation. In particular, the referring court states that it has initiated adversarial proceedings regarding the concrete allocation of the financing ordered under the challenged provisions and has considered the arguments provided by the Umbria Region unconvincing, which aimed to demonstrate a substantial coincidence between the institutional pursuit of Essential Levels of Technical Environmental Services (LEPTA) by ARPA and the realization of LEA.

Finally, the fact that the Umbria Region established a provision in the statement of accounts for an amount equal to the transfer of RHF resources ordered in favor of ARPA, cautiously provided to meet the risk of potential denial of equalization for the expenditure item relating to ARPA, is considered irrelevant. Nor is the relevance of the amendments introduced by Regional Law Umbria no. 12 of 2024 to Article 16 of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, since these amendments, which entered into force on August 3, 2024, are considered to have no influence on the management and results of the financial year 2023.

9.– The Attorney General of the Court of Accounts has intervened in the proceedings.

In support of the admissibility of its participation in the proceedings, the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Accounts recalls the right of State and regional bodies to intervene in proceedings before this Court (Article 20, second paragraph, of Law of March 11, 1953, n. 87, concerning "Provisions on the establishment and functioning of the Constitutional Court”), according to the regulation contained in Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Provisions for proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

The intervenor refers to the rulings of this Court in proceedings for conflict of attribution between entities, which affirmed the admissibility of the intervention of the Attorney General of the Court of Accounts (judgments no. 184 and no. 90 of 2022) and notes that the outcome of the constitutional legitimacy review would be capable of affecting the Public Prosecutor's power to take legal action to protect the interests of the entire community in the correct management of public resources and, in particular, the power to challenge the equalization decision of the general regional statement of accounts. It adds that, if the Supplementary Provisions allow the intervention even by third parties in constitutional proceedings, this should a fortiori be permitted for the original parties in the lower court proceedings. Furthermore, it refers to the judgment of the Court of Accounts, combined sections in judicial session, of September 19, 2024, no. 34, from which it appears that the role of the Public Prosecutor in the equalization proceeding is a role of guarantee exclusively in the interest of the legal system, without any judicial aspect being attributable to it in any way.

On the merits, the intervenor shares the considerations set out by the Regional Control Section of the Court of Accounts in the referral order.


Considered in Law

1.– The Court of Accounts, Regional Control Section for Umbria, in the equalization proceeding of the regional statement of accounts for the financial year 2023, with the order indicated in the preamble (reg. ord. no. 31 of 2025), raised questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 16, paragraph 1, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, in the text preceding the amendments introduced by Article 16, paragraph 1, letter k), of Regional Law Umbria no. 12 of 2024. It also questioned the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1 of Regional Law Umbria no. 18 of 2022, in the part where, by virtue of the authorization provisions contained in the budget forecast law, it confirmed the application of the aforementioned Article 16, paragraph 1, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998 also in the financial year 2023.

The questions are raised with reference to Articles 32, 81, 97, first paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letters e) and m), of the Constitution, the latter in relation to the interposed norm set out in Article 20 of Legislative Decree no. 118 of 2011, as well as Article 119, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

According to the referring court, the method of financing ARPA provided for by Article 16 of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, in the text preceding the amendments introduced by Regional Law Umbria no. 12 of 2024, allowed for an indistinct transfer of resources from the Regional Health Fund, and therefore generally for all tasks assigned to the Agency. This mechanism was confirmed through the application of the cited provision also in the financial year 2023 due to the authorization provisions contained in Article 1 of Regional Law Umbria no. 18 of 2022.

The challenged provisions allowed the Umbria Region, in the reference year, to order the transfer of EUR 14,213,516.19 from the Regional Health Fund resources, intended to generally and indistinctly support the performance of the functions assigned to ARPA. For this reason, they would be in conflict with Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, in relation to the interposed norm set out in Article 20 of Legislative Decree no. 118 of 2011, "superveniently, as the normative text predates not only Legislative Decree no. 118/2011 but also the 2001 constitutional reform".

The referring court, recalling the judgment of this Court no. 1 of 2024 on the matter, maintains that the challenged provisions alter the configuration of the health perimeter prescribed by the aforementioned Article 20, which requires regions to precisely define the revenues and expenditures related to the financing of their health service, thereby frustrating the accounting harmonization objectives pursued by the state normative provision.

The referring court also raises the violation, in relation to the same interposed norm, of Article 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, which reserves to the State the legislative competence on the determination of the essential levels of services concerning civil and social rights, as the allocation of resources from the health perimeter for the general benefit of ARPA's operation would be capable of prejudicing the effective provision of LEA, undermining the protection of the right to health under Article 32 of the Constitution itself.

The violation of Articles 81, 97, first paragraph, and 119, first paragraph, of the Constitution, which guarantee budget balance and expenditure sustainability, would also have occurred, due to the expansion of ordinary spending capacity that would derive from having allocated resources reserved for LEA to purposes extraneous to the perimeter, which the Region should have satisfied through ordinary budget resources.

2.– Preliminarily, the inadmissibility of the intervention of the Attorney General of the Court of Accounts must be declared.

Only the parties to the lower court proceedings (Article 4 of the Supplementary Provisions for proceedings before the Constitutional Court), in addition to the President of the Council of Ministers and, in the case of a regional law, the President of the Regional Executive, are admitted to intervene in the incidental review of constitutional legitimacy.

The intervention of subjects extraneous to the main proceeding (Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Provisions) is admissible only for third parties holding a qualified interest, directly and immediately pertaining to the substantive relationship raised in the proceeding.

As repeatedly stated by this Court with regard to questions of constitutional legitimacy submitted within equalization proceedings, the Attorney General of the Court of Accounts is not a party to the lower court proceeding and cannot be considered to hold a qualified interest: therefore, their intervention is inadmissible (judgment no. 59 of 2024 and no. 39 of 2024, with annexed order read at the public hearing of January 24, 2024).

Furthermore, the precedents of this Court cited in the intervening document (judgments no. 184 and no. 90 of 2022), which held the intervention of the Attorney General of the Court of Accounts to be admissible, are not relevant, as they concern the different case of proceedings for conflict of attribution between entities, in which the Attorney General of the Court of Accounts was a party to the ordinary proceeding from whose decision the conflict originated. And party status is decisive.

3.– Still preliminarily, this Court observes that the referral order adequately motivates the relevance of the issues raised. The referring court, in fact, following extensive adversarial discussion on the matter, found that, applying the challenged provisions, the Umbria Region had ordered a transfer of EUR 14,213,516.19 in the financial year 2023 from the Regional Health Fund resources, in order to generally and indistinctly support the performance of the functions assigned to ARPA (on the importance of accurate investigation in the equalization proceeding regarding the financing of regional environmental protection agencies, see Court of Accounts, combined sections in judicial session in special composition, judgment of August 1, 2025 n. 12).

Moreover, as noted by the referring court, the amendments introduced by Article 16, paragraph 1, letter k), of Regional Law Umbria no. 12 of 2024 to Article 16, paragraph 1, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998 do not affect the relevance of the questions raised in the lower court proceeding, because for the correct determination of the closing balance for the financial year 2023, the provisions in force pro tempore apply, including the aforementioned Article 16, paragraph 1, in its challenged formulation.

4.– On the merits, the question raised with reference to the exclusive legislative competence of the State under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, concerning the harmonization of public budgets, in relation to the interposed norm on the health perimeter under Article 20 of Legislative Decree no. 118 of 2011, is well-founded.

5.– In this regard, the considerations already set out by this Court in Judgment no. 1 of 2024 regarding the interposed norm under Article 20, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 118 of 2011 must be recalled. It requires the regions to guarantee, within the budget, "an exact demarcation of revenues and expenditures related to the financing of their regional health service," with the declared aim of allowing immediate comparability between health revenues and expenses recorded in the regional budget and the resources indicated in financial planning documents. To achieve this objective, the same paragraph 1 provides for the adoption of a budget chapter breakdown that ensures "separate evidence" of the quantified items therein, the first of which, in section A) "Revenues" (letter a), indicates the "ordinary current health financing as derived" from the aforementioned planning sources, to which corresponds, in letter a) of section B) "Expenditure," the "current health expenditure for the financing of LEA [...]". Specific accounting rules are then set for the health perimeter thus highlighted, which, as specified in the subsequent paragraph 2, are aimed at "guaranteeing the effectiveness of financing for levels of health care."

Judgment no. 1 of 2024 therefore affirmed that the provision of the Sicilian Region, challenged on that occasion, concerning the operating mechanism of the local ARPA, "by stipulating that all expenses for the Agency's operation could be covered, indistinctly, by the Regional Health Fund, is in conflict with the interposed norm under Article 20, because, in the text in force ratione temporis, it allocated resources to ARPA indiscriminately, without distinguishing between those necessary to guarantee services related to LEA and those intended for services of a non-health nature provided by the Agency, which cannot be financed through the Regional Health Fund."

This Court added that "the assignment to ARPA of functions not exclusively related to environmental protection and also concerning the health sector cannot justify non-compliance with the aforementioned state regulation on the 'health perimeter,' which requires the precise identification of resources intended to guarantee LEA, under penalty of violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, on the harmonization of public budgets."

6.– Returning to the present proceedings, the provisions of the Umbria Region legislation under challenge also provide for an indiscriminate allocation of resources to ARPA, without distinguishing between health-related resources—and within these, those necessary to guarantee services related to LEA—and those intended for services of a non-health nature provided by the Agency, which cannot be financed through the Regional Health Fund.

In fact, Article 16, paragraph 1, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, in the text applicable ratione temporis, had established for the financing of ARPA an expenditure item in the regional budget, funded exclusively by a share of the Regional Health Fund, for an initial amount equal to 9 billion lire.

Article 1 of Regional Law Umbria no. 18 of 2022, also challenged and concerning the budget forecast of the Umbria Region for 2023, quantified—in line with the general financing model provided for by the aforementioned Article 16, paragraph 1—the sums to be allocated to ARPA for the financial year 2023, charging these sums to the Regional Health Fund.

Thus, the challenged provisions, by stipulating that all expenses for the Agency's operation could be covered, indistinctly, by the Regional Health Fund, without differentiating health activities from those extraneous to them, violated the exclusive legislative competence of the State in matters of harmonization of public budgets, with regard to Article 20 of Legislative Decree no. 118 of 2011.

The question raised by the Court of Accounts, Regional Control Section for Umbria, in reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, consequently follows as well-founded.

7.– Therefore, the unconstitutionality of Article 16, paragraph 1, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998, in the text preceding the amendments introduced by Article 16, paragraph 1, letter k), of Regional Law Umbria no. 12 of 2024, and of Article 1 of Regional Law Umbria no. 18 of 2022, in the part where it confirmed the application of the aforementioned Article 16, paragraph 1, also in the financial year 2023, must be declared.

The further questions raised with reference to Articles 32, 81, 97, first paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, the latter in relation to the interposed norm set out in Article 20 of Legislative Decree no. 118 of 2011, as well as Article 119, first paragraph, of the Constitution, are absorbed.


for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1) declares the unconstitutionality of Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Law of the Umbria Region of March 6, 1998, n. 9, concerning "Provisions on the establishment and regulation of the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (A.R.P.A.)”, in the text preceding the amendments introduced by Article 16, paragraph 1, letter k), of the Law of the Umbria Region of August 1, 2024, n. 12 (Adjustment of the Budget Forecast of the Umbria Region 2024 - 2026 with amendments to regional laws);

2) declares the unconstitutionality of Article 1 of the Law of the Umbria Region of December 21, 2022, n. 18 (Budget Forecast of the Umbria Region 2023-2025), in the part where it confirmed the application of Article 16, paragraph 1, of Regional Law Umbria no. 9 of 1998 also in the financial year 2023;

3) declares inadmissible the intervention of the Attorney General of the Court of Accounts.

Decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on September 22, 2025.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Marco D'ALBERTI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Clerk Director

Filed in the Clerk's Office on October 16, 2025