JUDGMENT NO. 163

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, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,

has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the proceedings concerning the conflict of attribution between public entities arising from articles 2, paragraph 1, letters a), b), d), e), f), g), h), m), o), q), s), t), z), aa), bb) and ee), 3, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, from 4 to 10 as well as Annex 2, referenced in art. 4, Annex 3 (Model C), referenced in art. 5, and Annex 5, referenced in art. 7, letter c), of the Decree of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, October 16, 2024, no. 226 (Procedures for keeping and completing the electronic service log referred to in Article 11, paragraph 4, of Law of January 15, 1992, no. 21, for the purposes of carrying out the chauffeur-driven hire service exclusively by car or motorized rickshaw), adopted in agreement with the Ministry of the Interior; of points 2 to 6 of the circular of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of December 3, 2024, prot. no. 34247 (Clarifications on the operating procedures of the IT system for the completion and management of the Electronic Service Log, regulated by Interministerial Decree of October 26, 2024, no. 226), and of phases 2, 3 and 4 of the circular of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of December 23, 2024, prot. no. 36861 (Progressive release schedule for the functionalities of the Electronic Register for NCC and Taxi and the Electronic Service Log), promoted by the Calabria Region with appeals served on December 16, 2024, and February 10, 2025, filed in the registry on December 30, 2024, and March 1, 2025, respectively registered under numbers 3 of the register of conflicts between public entities 2024 and 1 of the register of conflicts between public entities 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic numbers 3 and 11, first special series, of the year 2025.

Having reviewed the statements of constitution of the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard the Reporting Judge Emanuela Navarretta in the public hearing of September 23, 2025;

having heard the lawyer Domenico Gullo for the Calabria Region and the State lawyer Beatrice Gaia Fiduccia for the President of the Council of Ministers;

deliberated in the council chamber on September 24, 2025.

Facts of the Case

1.– With an appeal served on December 16, 2024, and filed on the following December 30, registered under no. 3 reg. conflicts between public entities of 2024, the Calabria Region promoted a conflict of attribution between public entities against the State, regarding the Decree of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (MIT), adopted in agreement with the Ministry of the Interior, of October 16, 2024, no. 226 (Procedures for keeping and completing the electronic service log referred to in Article 11, paragraph 4, of Law of January 15, 1992, no. 21, for the purposes of carrying out the chauffeur-driven hire service exclusively by car or motorized rickshaw).

The appellant requests this Court to declare that it was not within the power of the State, and for it, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, in agreement with the Ministry of the Interior, to introduce new obligations or prohibitions for the exercise of the chauffeur-driven hire service activity.

Consequently, it requests the partial annulment of the Decree.

1.1.– The Calabria Region premises that the NCC service falls within the subject matter of "local public transport,” assignable to the residual legislative competence and the regulatory competence of the Regions, pursuant to art. 117, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Constitution.

The appellant specifies that the impugned Interministerial Decree was adopted on the basis of art. 11, paragraph 4, of Law of January 15, 1992, no. 21 (Framework Law for the transport of persons by non-scheduled public services), as replaced by art. 10-bis, paragraph 1, letter e), of Decree-Law of December 14, 2018, no. 135 (Urgent provisions concerning support and simplification for businesses and public administration), converted, with amendments, into Law of February 11, 2019, no. 12, and emphasizes that this provision was partially declared constitutionally illegitimate by this Court with Judgment no. 56 of 2020.

1.2.– According to the Region, the impugned Decree did not limit itself to establishing the technical specifications of the electronic service log, but – by regulating the "methods of completion and keeping” thereof by the driver – imposed further obligations on the service provider and regulated the exercise of the NCC activity, resulting in multiple interferences with the legislative and administrative powers assigned to the Regions by the Constitution.

In particular, there was an intrusion into the matters of "local public transport,” "tourism,” and "local administrative policing,” referred to in art. 117, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Constitution; moreover, the principle of loyal collaboration was violated, and art. 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union was breached, with a simultaneous impact on the competence attributed to the Regions by art. 117, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution.

2.– The appeal targets three aspects of the regulation introduced by the impugned act.

2.1.– Firstly, the Region contests the provisions of art. 4, paragraph 3, in conjunction with arts. 2, paragraph 1, letters s), t) and ee), and 7, letter c), of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024, concerning services provided with departure from a location other than the depot or the areas referred to in art. 11, paragraph 6, of Law no. 21 of 1992 (Model B).

The appellant illustrates the aforementioned provisions, according to which the IT application allows the registration of the reservation as a "draft service” only if it is made up to twenty minutes before the start of the service departing from outside the depot, to which is added the further constraint to make the departure of such service coincide with the arrival of the previous service.

The Calabria Region infers from this regulation the imposition of an "obligation to suspend the service for twenty minutes, between one trip and the next,” which not only lacks support in art. 11, paragraph 4, of Law no. 21 of 1992, but substantially reintroduces the provision of a requirement to return to the depot, between one service and the next. The latter was initially introduced, in the aforementioned legal provision, by art. 10-bis, paragraph 1, letter e), of Decree-Law no. 135 of 2018, as converted, and then declared constitutionally illegitimate by Judgment no. 56 of 2020.

The appellant reports that, according to this Court, the provision requiring the "interruption of the service through the introduction of the obligation to return to the depot” showed a conflict with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, thus exceeding the state competence in the matter of "protection of competition.” The Decree, therefore, unduly re-proposed, "on a different level, the intent to pursue a similar effect, directly, by imposing […] a minimum wait time, between one trip and the next.”

In the opinion of the Calabria Region, this would lead to an interference with the subject matter of "local public transport,” assigned to the legislative and regulatory competence of the Regions by art. 117, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Constitution, and would conflict with European Union law (art. 49 TFEU), also resulting in an infringement of the prerogatives assigned to the Regions by art. 117, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution.

2.2.– Secondly, the appellant challenges the regulation of "duration contracts,” referred to in art. 5 of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024, which, in coordination with both the definitions provided in art. 2, paragraph 1, letters f), h), m), q), t), z), aa), bb), ee), and Annex 3, Model C, referenced in the same art. 5, leads to the exclusion that the client can exercise "even indirectly activities of intermediation between the demand and supply of NCC services.”

Such preclusion prevents the conclusion of duration contracts with operators such as hotels, travel agencies, and tour operators, affecting the conditions of market access and the modalities of service provision, which would lead to an interference with regional powers in the matters of "local public transport” and "tourism.”

2.3.– The last aspect of the regulation contested by the appeal relates to the obligation to register and manage service logs through the "exclusive use of the 'IT application'” established and managed by the MIT. This aspect is regulated by art. 3 of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024, to be read in correlation with Annex 1 and the definitional rules in art. 2, paragraph 1, letters a), b), d), e), f), g), o), t), z), aa), bb) and ee), of the same Decree, and is also regulated, as regards specific aspects, by arts. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the same Decree, as well as by Annexes 2, 3 and 5, referenced respectively in arts. 4, 5 and 7, letter c).

According to the Region, the aforementioned obligation exceeds what is provided for in art. 11, paragraph 4, of Law no. 21 of 1992, which makes no reference to the establishment of the IT application at the Ministry, nor to the exclusive nature of the IT and electronic system for completing the service log.

The appeal further highlights that the introduced regulation is not functional to prevent circumventions of the competitive rules designed to protect taxi service providers. For this purpose, conversely, art. 6, paragraph 2, of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024 is intended, which stipulates that "[d]uring on-road checks by the bodies referred to in article 12 of Legislative Decree of April 30, 1992, no. 285, the driver communicates to them the identification code of the service log and exhibits a copy thereof, upon request, also in digital format.”

The constraints imposed by the Interministerial Decree therefore exceed, according to the appellant, the limits of reasonableness and proportionality in pursuing objectives attributable to competition purposes, which leads to an undue intrusion into regional powers in the matters of "local public transport” and "local administrative policing.”

3.– Regarding the procedural and inter-institutional relations aspects, the Region also alleges the violation of the principle of loyal collaboration, asserting that the adoption of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024, although affecting areas of regional competence, was not preceded by appropriate forms of regional involvement, traceable to the "system of State-Regions and Local Authorities Conferences,” as the appellant infers from the constitutional case law (specifically from Judgment no. 31 of 2006).

The failure to observe the principle of loyal collaboration would therefore entail the violation of arts. 5, 114, 117, 118, third paragraph, 119 and 120 of the Constitution.

4.– Finally, the Region submits a request for precautionary measures to suspend the effectiveness of the impugned Decree, pursuant to art. 40 of Law of March 11, 1953, no. 87 (Provisions on the establishment and functioning of the Constitutional Court).

With reference to the periculum in mora (danger in delay), it states the aggravation, especially in the Calabrian territory, of the known deficiencies in non-scheduled services, regarding which it recalls the considerations set out by this Court in Judgment no. 137 of 2024.

Regarding the fumus boni iuris (likelihood of success on the merits), it refers instead to the grounds of appeal.

5.– With a subsequent appeal, served on February 10, 2025, and filed on March 1, 2025, registered under no. 1 reg. conflicts between public entities of 2025, the Calabria Region promoted a conflict of attribution between public entities against the State also in relation to: i) points 2 to 6 of the circular of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of December 3, 2024, prot. no. 34247 (Clarifications on the operating procedures of the IT system for the completion and management of the Electronic Service Log, regulated by Interministerial Decree of October 26, 2024, no. 226); ii) phases 2, 3 and 4 of the circular of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of December 23, 2024, prot. no. 36861 (Progressive release schedule for the functionalities of the Electronic Register for NCC and Taxi and the Electronic Service Log).

The appellant requests this Court to declare that it was not within the power of the State, and for it, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, to introduce new obligations or prohibitions for the exercise of the chauffeur-driven hire service activity.

Consequently, it requests the partial annulment of the aforementioned circulars.

6.– The Region premises that both circulars were issued "in implementation” of art. 10, paragraph 2, of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024, and that, due to their executive and consequential nature, they would, in any case, become void in the event of the annulment of the Decree.

Nevertheless, it considers that they present autonomous injurious aspects, as they directly affect the modalities of carrying out the NCC service and the organization of operators. The regulation provided for by the aforementioned circulars would, therefore, entail, regarding the aspects already contested in the previous appeal: i) the invasion of the areas of regional legislative and regulatory competence, "local public transport,” "tourism,” and "local administrative policing,” referred to in art. 117, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Constitution; ii) the infringement of art. 117, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to art. 49 TFEU; iii) the violation of the principle of loyal collaboration, referred to in arts. 5, 114, 117, 118, 119 and 120 of the Constitution.

6.1.– In particular, the Region alleges that the MIT Circular no. 34247 of 2024 reproduces and reinforces the rules of the Interministerial Decree, demonstrating that, in the regulation of the three aspects already contested in the first appeal, there is an excess beyond the state legislative competence in the matter of "protection of competition” and an invasion of residual, legislative, and regulatory regional powers, starting from the matter of "local public transport,” as well as a violation of art. 117, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to art. 49 TFEU.

With reference to NCC services provided departing from a location other than the depot, or the areas referred to in art. 11, paragraph 6, of Law no. 21 of 1992, point 4 of the circular dedicates specific instructions regarding the generation of the FDSE, thus re-proposing and integrating the provision of the obligation to wait twenty minutes between the reservation and the start of the related service.

Regarding the regulation of duration contracts, the circular, still at the aforementioned point 4, requires the use of Model C, whose regulation precludes certain categories of subjects from concluding duration contracts with the NCC service provider.

Finally, concerning the introduction and imposition of the use of the IT application for the generation, completion, and keeping of the electronic log, the circular – by regulating the access methods, structure, management, and consultation of the FDSE, respectively in points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 – requires the exclusive use of the IT application established and managed by the MIT.

6.2.– The Region also notes that MIT Circular no. 36861 of 2024 also regulates the aforementioned aspects, providing for the scanning of timelines, as well as the implementing modalities of the centralized IT system, and also confirming the exclusivity of the ministerial application tool for the generation, completion, and keeping of the electronic log.

The aforementioned circular also contemplates further obligations and would affect the organization of the service, as well as administrative control functions, thereby invading regional legislative and regulatory powers, starting from the matter of "local administrative policing.”

6.3.– The appeal adds that the impugned circulars were adopted without due observance of the principle of loyal collaboration.

6.4.– The Calabria Region therefore requests this Court to declare that it was not within the power of the State to adopt such regulation and to partially annul the circulars.

7.– With an act filed on January 27, 2025, the President of the Council of Ministers constituted himself in the proceedings, with reference to the first conflict, represented and defended by the State Advocate General’s Office, which deems the appeal inadmissible due to the lack of constitutional tone, as it is not aimed at restoring the constitutional order of competences but rather at removing an obstacle to the better competitiveness of the undertakings.

7.1.– On the merits, after summarizing the relevant regulatory and case law framework, the State defense maintains that the regulation contested with the first ground of appeal is aimed exclusively at ensuring the prior booking of the NCC service, so as to ensure that the latter is addressed only to a specific and differentiated clientele.

In this regard, the Interministerial Decree would have complied with the principles expressed by this Court with Judgment no. 56 of 2020, which would not have "swept away the obligation to return to the depot tout court, but rather the obligation to return to the depot necessarily at the end of each single service, with an absolute preclusion of carrying out subsequent services without first returning, even ‘empty,’ to the depot, ‘if only for the hypothesis that the carrier is called to perform a service immediately following the previous service.’”

In particular, the Advocate General’s Office specifies that no time constraint is provided for Models A and C, whereas for Model B, the minimum interval that must elapse between the reservation and the start of the connected service would be functional to demonstrating that the NCC carrier does not return to the depot, because there is a service connected to the previous one. In this way, the time interval would make it possible to carry out checks to prevent abusive conduct and would not cause practical inconvenience, as it would not be "conceivable that – especially in large cities – a client might book their trusted chauffeur-driven hire service within a shorter timeframe than that provided for by the Decree,” which legitimizes the continuity of the transport activity.

The State defense, while asserting that residual regional legislative and regulatory competence has not been invaded, hinges on the finalistic and transversal nature of the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of "protection of competition” and, to this end, refers to both this Court’s Judgment no. 206 of 2024 and the judgment of the Council of State, fifth section, April 28, 2022, no. 3381.

As for compatibility with European Union law, the Advocate General’s Office points out that the Council of State, fifth section, Judgment of July 11, 2022, no. 5756, decided not to disapply Italian legislation, considering the authorization regime compatible with arts. 49 and 56 TFEU. Furthermore, it argues that disputes regarding the NCC service do not concern the cross-border nature of the service, evoking, to support this conclusion, the judgments of the Court of Justice of February 13, 2014, joined cases C-419/12 and C-420/12, Crono Service and others.

7.2.– Regarding duration contracts (Model C), the State Advocate General’s Office argues that if the simplified regime of this model were extended to an intermediary carrying out intermediation activities, even indirectly, it would end up extending the offer of the NCC service to an undifferentiated clientele, which is the domain of the taxi service.

It further notes that NCC providers are not precluded from "concluding contracts with hotels, travel agencies, tour operators,” but that, in that case, Model C, concerning the conclusion of duration contracts, cannot apply.

7.3.– Finally, concerning the obligation to exclusively use the IT application, the State defense contests the generality of the censure, which renders obscure the meaning of the alleged interference with powers assigned to the Region.

In any case, the State Advocate General’s Office emphasizes that the primary reference legislation does not prohibit the adoption of digital coordination tools and that these would be consistent with the general principle of good administration and simplification of administrative action, referred to in art. 97 of the Constitution.

7.4.– Lastly, with reference to the alleged violation of the principle of loyal collaboration, the State defense points out that the service log was already provided for by primary legislation and that the administrative act would therefore have no innovative impact, other than its digitalization. Consequently, it is not clear how the violation of the principle of loyal collaboration could materialize.

In any case, the respondent refers to Judgment no. 56 of 2020, which recognized the prevailing nature of the matter of "protection of competition” under the State’s exclusive legislative competence, a prevalence that would make the application of the principle of loyal collaboration superfluous.

7.5.– As for the request for precautionary measures, the President of the Council of Ministers argues the absence of periculum in mora, highlighting that the FDSE is not (yet) operational and that Circular no. 36861 of 2024 provides for a phased release; the deadline of art. 10, paragraph 2, of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024 is understood as non-binding, and in the absence of a fully functional application, the obligation to keep the FDSE would not be current.

8.– With an act filed on March 21, 2025, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Advocate General’s Office, constituted himself in the proceedings also in the conflict of attribution between public entities promoted with the second appeal of the Calabria Region.

In the opinion of the State defense, the conflict would be inadmissible, as "the impugned circulars would merely confirm the provisions of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 16.10.2024 of which they constitute application and would therefore be devoid of autonomous injurious capacity with respect to it.”

Furthermore, it reproduces, with the same arguments as in the statement of constitution in the proceedings against the first appeal, the exception of inadmissibility concerning the lack of constitutional tone.

Likewise, it reiterates on the merits the same reasoning developed against the acceptance of the first appeal.

9.– On February 4, 2025, the National Association of Passenger Transport Enterprises (ANITRAV) filed a written opinion regarding the first conflict promoted by the Calabria Region, which was admitted by decree of the President of the Constitutional Court on March 4, 2025.

The Association argues that Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024 goes beyond the "technical specifications” of the electronic log, affecting the operating modalities of the NCC service and illicitly reinstating effects analogous to the obligation to return to the depot declared constitutionally illegitimate by Judgment no. 56 of 2020, with violation of regional competences and the principles of subsidiarity and loyal collaboration (arts. 118 and 120 of the Constitution). It notes, in particular, that the Regions would have been deprived of the possibility of adopting regulatory tools adequate to territorial specificities and further deduces aspects of unreasonableness and non-proportionality (art. 3 of the Constitution), especially to the detriment of the freedom of economic initiative (art. 41 of the Constitution) and the constraints imposed by European Union law (art. 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to arts. 49 and 56 TFEU).

10.– With a brief on August 4, 2025, the State defense addressed the arguments put forward by the amicus curiae and reiterated the structural distinction between the activity proper to taxis and the NCC service, returning to emphasize how the provision of the twenty-minute limit, concerning Model B, is functional to ascertaining the regular conduct of the carrier and avoiding acts of unfair competition.

Finally, the State Advocate General’s Office specifies that Law no. 21 of 1992 regulates non-scheduled public motor services, with the objective of "balancing the competitive demands underlying the entire economic system with the essential needs of protecting users and guaranteeing the quality of the service.” It then recognizes broad powers to the Regions concerning non-scheduled public motor services, but specifies that the Decree would have no effect on them, so that, for this reason, the Regions were not involved in its preparation.

Still on the precautionary measure, the Advocate General’s Office insists on the non-operativity of the system and the progressive nature of the implementation, reiterating the non-existence of serious and irreparable harm.

11.– With two separate acts, filed on September 2, 2025, the Calabria Region submitted briefs regarding both conflicts. In both, it notes that in the interim, the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, third section, August 4, 2025, no. 15273, has been issued, annulling Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024 and the circulars which are the subject of the second appeal.

It nevertheless reiterates the Region's continuing interest in the appeal.

In the first brief, it replies to the inadmissibility exception of the State Advocate General’s Office, alleging the precise identification of aspects that infringe on regional powers.

On the merits, it argues that the State defense has not addressed the actual reasons for the injurious scope of the individual challenges and reiterates that the Decree did not limit itself to providing the "specifications” of the service log, but regulated the modalities of carrying out the service, a task that falls within the sphere of regional powers. It reaffirms, moreover, that the provision of additional obligations on NCC service providers, without any involvement of the Region, would constitute a violation of the principle of loyal collaboration.

In the second brief, the Region replies to both inadmissibility grounds raised by the Advocate General’s Office. In particular, regarding the alleged non-injurious nature of the circulars, it objects that the appeal raises "autonomous objections” against them. As for both the procedural exception concerning the lack of constitutional tone and the arguments concerning the merits, the Region reiterates arguments identical to those put forward with reference to the first appeal and emphasizes that the State Advocate General’s Office did not dwell on the autonomous and specific censures raised regarding the circulars in question.

12.– In the public hearing of September 23, 2025, the defense for the Calabria Region and the State Advocate General’s Office appeared and insisted on the conclusions presented in their defensive briefs.

Considerations in Law

1.– With an appeal filed on December 30, 2024, registered under no. 3 reg. conflicts between public entities of 2024, the Calabria Region promoted a conflict of attribution between public entities against the State, requesting this Court to declare that it was not within the power of the latter and, for it, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, in agreement with the Ministry of the Interior, to adopt Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024. This provision, in regulating the procedures for keeping and completing the FDSE and in identifying the technical specifications, introduces new obligations and prohibitions for the exercise of the chauffeur-driven hire service, which would interfere with regional legislative and administrative powers.

With a subsequent appeal, filed on March 1, 2025, registered under no. 1 reg. conflicts between public entities of 2025, the same appellant requested this Court to declare that it was not within the power of the State and, for it, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, to adopt the following ministerial circulars: no. 34247 of 2024, containing clarifications on the operating procedures of the IT system for the management of the FDSE, and no. 36861 of 2024, concerning the progressive release schedule for the functionalities of the electronic register for NCC and taxi. These circulars, in implementing the aforementioned Interministerial Decree, would reproduce and reinforce the obligations and prohibitions imposed on NCC operators and would also entail an invasion of regional powers.

The Calabria Region therefore requested the partial annulment of the above-mentioned acts, as well as submitting a request for precautionary measures to suspend the effectiveness of the impugned Decree.

2.– The two appeals focus on three aspects of the impugned regulation: i) the imposition of a time constraint of at least twenty minutes between the reservation and the start of the NCC service, for cases where it does not start from the depot; ii) the exclusion from the possibility of concluding duration contracts for NCC transport for subjects who carry out intermediation activities, even indirectly; iii) the obligation for NCC service providers to exclusively use the ministerial IT application for completing the FDSE.

According to the Region, the impugned acts did not limit themselves to establishing the technical specifications of the electronic service log, but imposed obligations on the service provider not suitable for pursuing anti-evasion purposes of the competition rules established in favor of taxi license holders.

Therefore, in the appellant's view, the impugned regulation, by dealing with the modalities of exercising NCC transport, encroaches upon the matters of "local public transport,” "tourism,” and "local administrative policing,” under the regional legislative and administrative competence, pursuant to art. 117, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Constitution; furthermore, it violates the principle of loyal collaboration and affects the competence attributed to the Regions by art. 117, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution, based on the alleged breach of art. 49 TFEU.

3.– The two appeals under examination involve fully overlapping arguments and relate to provisions that, although distinct, are interconnected. The substantial identity of the content of the appeals and their reference to the same legal matter justify, according to a consistent orientation of this Court (inter alia, Judgment no. 260 of 2020), the joinder of the proceedings, so that they may be decided with a single judgment.

4.– Preliminarily, the admissibility of the appeals must be examined.

4.1.– The State Advocate General’s Office objects, with reference to both, the lack of constitutional tone of the conflict.

It notes, in this regard, that "[t]he fundamental prerequisite for an appeal for a conflict of attribution by the Region against the State is the irrefutable demonstration of the interest in appealing, which materializes in the current injury to its sphere of competence and the adequacy of the appeal to restore the constitutional order of attributions.” In the present case, neither of the two appeals would be "aimed at restoring the constitutional order of competences but rather at the alleged removal of an obstacle to better competitiveness of the hire undertakings, extraneous to the constitutional order of competences.”

The State defense also, in the statement of constitution in the proceedings concerning the second appeal, objects that "the impugned circulars would merely confirm the provisions of the Decree [...] of which they constitute application and would therefore be devoid of autonomous injurious capacity.”

4.2.– Both exceptions are unfounded.

It must be recalled, preliminarily, that Regions may file an appeal for a conflict of attribution between public entities, pursuant to art. 39, first paragraph, of Law no. 87 of 1953, when they allege not any violation of constitutional principles, but the injury of their legislative or regulatory competence (inter alia, Judgments no. 173 of 2023, no. 90 of 2022 and no. 22 of 2020). This effect may arise from both an act and conduct (Judgments no. 122 of 2013, no. 332 of 2011, no. 382 of 2006 and no. 211 of 1994) – provided they have efficacy and external relevance – which are aimed at clearly and unequivocally expressing the claim to exercise a particular competence, injurious to the appellant's constitutional sphere of attribution (Judgment no. 259 of 2019).

4.2.1.– Based on these prerequisites, the exception alleging the lack of constitutional tone of the conflicts must first be dismissed.

The Calabria Region maintains that Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024 and the related circulars introduce obligations and prohibitions that exceed not only the limits established by art. 11, paragraph 4, of Law no. 21 of 1992, but also the perimeter of the State's legislative competence in the matter of "protection of competition,” interfering with the constitutional legislative and regulatory powers of the Regions, in the matters of "local public transport,” "tourism,” and "local administrative policing” (art. 117, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Constitution).

Indeed, in line with the case law of this Court, the mere assertion by the appellant that its constitutional competences have been injured is sufficient to confer the necessary tone to the appeal (Judgments no. 164 of 2021 and no. 259 of 2019). Such a complaint is sufficient, in fact, to establish the interest in appealing, qualified by the objective of restoring the integrity of the sphere of constitutional attributions, which are claimed to be impaired (again, Judgment no. 259 of 2019).

4.2.2.– The Advocate General’s second exception, alleging the lack of autonomous injurious capacity with respect to the impugned circulars, is likewise unfounded.

MIT Circular no. 34247 of 2024, although formally presented as an interpretive instrument, does not limit itself to providing general guidance or hermeneutic solutions, but reveals a clear dispositive intent towards the addressees, defining specific operational modalities that result in a regulation of the NCC service.

Thus, a clear will of the State to exercise the competence regarding which the Region complains of undue interference is manifested (Judgments no. 245 and no. 174 of 1996).

MIT Circular no. 36861 of 2024 also does not limit itself to providing a summary description of the implementation phases of the services, but, in outlining an implementation program, according to established modalities and times, assumes a dispositive scope and is an expression of the State's will to exercise its own competence.

Whether the alleged interferences are effectively ascertainable is an assessment pertaining to the merits, which, however, does not affect the admissibility of the conflicts.

4.3.– Moreover, the annulment of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024 and the implementing circulars by the TAR Lazio, third section, Judgments of August 4, 2025, no. 15272, no. 15273, no. 15284, and no. 15288, does not affect the admissibility of the appeals.

According to consistent constitutional case law, the mere annulment of the impugned act is not in itself sufficient to cause the cessation of the subject matter of the dispute, where "the appellant's interest in obtaining a decision on the assignment of the contested power” persists (Judgment no. 15 of 2024, which refers to Judgment no. 224 of 2019).

The judgment concerning the type of conflict in question is, in fact, aimed at "defining the scope of the spheres of attribution of the conflicting powers at the time it arose, generally remaining insensitive to subsequent developments in the events that gave rise to the conflict” (Judgment no. 106 of 2009).

It must be noted, then, that in the present case, there is "an interest in verification, which originates from the need to put an end [...] to a situation of uncertainty regarding the constitutional distribution of powers” (Judgment no. 9 of 2013). Such an interest, on one hand, is confirmed by what was argued in the briefs and at the hearing by the Calabria Region itself, and on the other hand, is further supported by the possible appeal of the judgments that annulled the acts subject to the same conflicts.

5.– On the merits, the appeals are founded, with absorption of the request for precautionary measures.

6.– Preliminarily, the constitutional distribution of powers involved, with reference to the regulation that is the subject of the impugned acts, must be recalled.

6.1.– The regulation of the NCC service generally falls within the scope of competence attributable to the matter of "local public transport.” Following the reform introduced by Constitutional Law of October 18, 2001, no. 3 (Amendments to Title V of Part Two of the Constitution), it is assigned to the residual legislative powers of the Regions, referred to in art. 117, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, and to the regulatory powers of the Regions, referred to in art. 117, sixth paragraph, of the Constitution, as repeatedly emphasized by this Court (inter alia, Judgments no. 183 of 2024, no. 137 and no. 78 of 2018, no. 30 of 2016 and no. 452 of 2007), also with specific reference to the sector of "scheduled and non-scheduled public transport services” (Judgments no. 56 of 2020 and no. 5 of 2019).

6.2.– The above categorization does not exclude the possibility that the specific thematic area intersects with regulations aimed at pursuing competition objectives, capable of being drawn into the State’s exclusive legislative competence, of a finalistic and transversal nature, referred to in art. 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution (inter alia, Judgment no. 206 of 2024).

In particular, in the regulation of the NCC transport service, the matter of "protection of competition” may well be involved, where the State regulation pursues the objective of identifying a balance between the exercise of free private economic initiative by the NCC service provider and the guarantee in favor of taxi license holders to be able to serve an undifferentiated clientele. Only the latter, in fact, are bound by a mandatory service regime and the respect of fixed administratively determined fares, in protection of the public interest "in the capillarity and obligation of non-scheduled transport at a contained cost” (Judgment no. 56 of 2020).

If, therefore, the matter of "protection of competition” – which art. 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution declines in a functional sense – can intersect, even with analytical interventions, with matters of regional competence, including local public transport, nonetheless, the exercise of the transversal state legislative competence cannot exceed the limits of reasonableness and proportionality in pursuing the finality that delimits its own perimeter.

As this Court has already pointed out in the past, "the reference to the protection of competition cannot be so pervasive as to absorb, a priori, matters of regional competence” (Judgment no. 98 of 2017), so that "the exercise of transversal legislative competence in this matter, when it intersects with titles of regional authority, must respect the limits of adequacy and proportionality with respect to the pursued aim and the expected objectives” (Judgments no. 62 of 2025 and no. 206 of 2024; mutatis mutandis, Judgment no. 56 of 2020). The principle of proportionality "must find rigorous application all the more in the context of relations between the State and the Regions, the more the State provision entails a significant compression […] of regional autonomy” (Judgment no. 272 of 2015; mutatis mutandis, Judgments no. 56 of 2020 and no. 206 of 2024), requiring an assessment of whether the norm, "among several appropriate measures, prescribes the one least restrictive of the rights in comparison and establishes burdens disproportionate to the pursuit of said objectives” (inter alia, Judgments no. 56 of 2020, no. 137 of 2018 and no. 272 of 2015).

Embedded in the context of conflicts of attribution between public entities, the review of reasonableness and proportionality of the exercise of transversal State legislative competences traces the demarcation line that allows determining the excess from such competences and the interference with regional ones related to the specific matter involved (this proportionality judgment was used within conflicts of attribution between the State and Regions by Judgment no. 374 of 2007 and, in similar terms, Judgments no. 255 of 2019 and no. 207 of 2012).

7.– In light of the principles recalled, the various aspects covered by the two appeals must be examined.

7.1.– The first controversial aspect stems from the regulation under art. 4, paragraph 3, of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024, and the related point 4 of MIT Circular no. 34247 of 2024, which, with regard to services provided under Model B (departure from a location other than the depot), provide for the generation of a "draft” of the FDSE and the time constraint of at least twenty minutes that must elapse between the reservation and the start of the service.

This obligation on the NCC service provider finds no support in the legal basis constituted by art. 11, paragraph 4, of Law no. 21 of 1992, which limits itself to delegating to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, by decree adopted in agreement with the Ministry of the Interior, the definition of the "technical specifications” of the electronic service log.

Furthermore, and above all, the introduction of a minimum operational time between the reservation and the service performance is a disproportionate measure with respect to the anti-evasion purpose, aimed at preventing the NCC service from being addressed to an undifferentiated clientele, reserved only for taxi license holders. Such an objective, in fact, is already adequately safeguarded by the aforementioned art. 11, paragraph 4, of the Framework Law no. 21 of 1992, where it provides for the obligation for the NCC service provider to receive service requests at the depot or registered office, including through the use of technological tools, as well as the obligation to complete and keep the electronic service log and to exhibit it in case of checks.

Conversely, the rule of twenty minutes between the reservation and the service performance entails an organizational and management burden that exceeds the limit of strict necessity and illicitly achieves the same result underlying the regulation that this Court has already declared constitutionally illegitimate with Judgment no. 56 of 2020.

On the one hand, in fact, the minimum interval of twenty minutes between the reservation and the start of the service (art. 4, paragraph 3, letter a, of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024), together with the provision according to which the departure of the new service must coincide with the arrival of the previous one (letter b, of the aforementioned paragraph), ends up allowing the start of a new service, without returning to the depot, only in cases where "more reservations for the service are registered from the departure from the depot or the docking point” (art. 11, paragraph 4-bis, of Law no. 21 of 1992). However, such a restriction on the possibility of performing the NCC transport service, without returning to the depot, coincides precisely with the regulation provided for by the aforementioned art. 11, paragraph 4-bis, introduced by art. 10-bis, paragraph 1, letter f), of Decree-Law no. 135 of 2018, as converted, and declared constitutionally illegitimate by the aforementioned Judgment no. 56 of 2020.

On the other hand, outside the cases of multiple reservations registered from the departure from the depot, the combination of three constraints – namely, the prohibition of parking in public areas (art. 11, paragraph 3, of Law no. 21 of 1992), the minimum interval of twenty minutes between the reservation and the start of the service, and the necessary coincidence of the departure of the new service with the arrival of the previous one (art. 4, paragraph 3, of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024) – entails burdensome consequences.

The carrier, who receives a specific reservation after departing from the depot or during the return, cannot park in public areas, as he is not waiting for the client (which would be permitted by art. 11, paragraph 4-ter, of Law no. 21 of 1992), but must wait for the time imposed by the Interministerial Decree and the implementing circular mentioned above to elapse. Consequently, he is forced to circulate "empty” or return to the depot. In either case, systemic inefficiencies and negative consequences for the environment are generated, and with the return to the depot, the same constraint is indirectly reproduced, which was introduced by art. 10-bis, paragraph 1, letter e), of Decree-Law no. 135 of 2018, as converted, into the second period of art. 11, paragraph 4, of Law no. 21 of 1992, declared constitutionally illegitimate by the same Judgment no. 56 of 2020.

In essence, the violation of the principle of proportionality – implemented moreover by an indirect re-proposal of constraints that this Court has already deemed to exceed the matter of "protection of competition” – leads to a deviation from the correct exercise of the aforementioned transversal state competence, resulting in an undue interference with the residual regional competence of "local public transport,” to which the regulation of the modalities of exercising the NCC service pertains.

7.2.– The second aspect contested with the two appeals is linked to the regulation provided for in arts. 2, paragraph 1, letters h) and m), and 5 of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024, as well as point 4 of MIT Circular no. 34247 of 2024.

The first provision contemplates the normative definition of both the "duration contract,” as a "transport contract concluded by an NCC carrier with a client who does not also carry out intermediation activities between the demand and supply of NCC services, even indirectly” (art. 2, paragraph 1, letter m, of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024), and the "client,” as a "subject who concludes a transport contract for persons with an NCC carrier for their own benefit or for a differentiated clientele in any case” (letter h of the same paragraph).

From the hermeneutic coordination between the aforementioned provisions and the regulation concerning the completion of the service log for duration contracts (art. 5 of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024 and point 4 of MIT Circular no. 34247 of 2024), a prohibition for the NCC service provider to conclude duration transport contracts with subjects who carry out intermediation activities, "even indirectly,” is evident.

Such broad wording ends up encompassing not only hypotheses potentially aimed at pursuing the anti-evasion objective of preventing the intermediary from carrying out the activity prohibited to the NCC provider, i.e., attempting to intercept an undifferentiated clientele, but also situations not attributable to this purpose.

By way of example, the reference to those who carry out intermediation activities only indirectly is such as to also inhibit hotels, travel agencies, or tour operators from concluding duration contracts to ensure their clients with certain, rapid, and agreed-upon transport services, given that such subjects undoubtedly end up carrying out, at least indirectly, an intermediation activity.

However, it cannot be considered that allowing some to negotiate the conditions of a transport service to be provided to their clients prejudices the public interest underlying the distinction between the taxi service and the NCC service.

Consequently, the impugned regulation, by referring to those who carry out intermediation activities, even indirectly, exceeds the competition purpose and unduly compresses contractual autonomy, which is a natural instrument of competition.

The violation of the principle of proportionality in pursuing the purpose that legitimizes the reference to the State’s legislative competence, referred to in art. 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, also determines, in this case, an undue interference with the matter of residual regional competence of "local public transport,” resulting from a regulation of the modalities of exercising NCC transport that transcends the limits of the transversal State legislative competence in the matter of "protection of competition.”

7.3.– Finally, the last aspect contested with the two appeals focuses on the regulation that exclusively imposes the use of the IT application for the generation, completion, and keeping of the FDSE established at the MIT. This is evident from art. 2, paragraph 1, letter b) and art. 3 of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024 and the related points of the ministerial circulars (specifically point 2 of MIT Circular no. 34247 of 2024 and phases 2, 3, and 4 of MIT Circular no. 36861 of 2024).

The choice to impose a centralized system, developed by the State, proves to exceed the purpose of ensuring the electronic verification of the data contained in the service log. Control activities, in fact, can be adequately guaranteed through alternative solutions that are more respectful of free private economic initiative and the organizational autonomy of economic operators. It is sufficient to recall, in this regard, the adoption of open or interoperable systems managed by certified subjects and accessible to the authorities upon request, according to models already consolidated in other regulated sectors.

Conversely, the imposition of a proprietary application, accessible only via the Public Digital Identity System (SPID) or Electronic Identity Card (CIE) and not interoperable with other technological tools, not only fails to pursue the competition objective of protecting the activity of those who carry out the transport service via taxi with proportionate tools, but also conflicts with the principle of technological neutrality. The latter has been recognized by several European legislative acts: first and foremost, Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 11, 2018, establishing the European Electronic Communications Code; furthermore, Regulation (EU) no. 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 13, 2024, laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) no. 300/2008, (EU) no. 167/2013, (EU) no. 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Regulation), Regulation (EU) no. 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 31, 2024, on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, Regulation no. 2024/1309 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 29, 2024, laying down measures to reduce the costs of installing Gigabit electronic communications networks, amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Directive 2014/61/EU (Gigabit Infrastructure Regulation) and Directive (EU) no. 2024/1275 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 24, 2024, on the energy performance of buildings. Indeed, this principle – inspired by the need not to favor one technological system over others equally capable of realizing the same regulatory objective – underlies the protection of competition itself. Therefore, based on it, the administration, in defining the technical specifications, could and should have avoided proprietary or exclusionary solutions, with the related constraints, favoring instead interoperability and flexibility.

Even with regard to this last aspect, an interference with the regional legislative and regulatory competence emerges, in the matter of "local public transport,” resulting from a regulation of the modalities of exercising transport via NCC that transcends the limits of the transversal State legislative competence in the matter of "protection of competition.”

8.– Having established the lack of state competence with reference to all aspects of the regulation that are the subject of the two appeals, the partial annulment of the impugned acts must be ordered.

9.– The complaints concerning the invasion of residual regional competences, legislative and regulatory, in the matters of "tourism” and "local administrative policing,” referred to in art. 117, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Constitution; the interference with the regional competence referred to in art. 117, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to the alleged breach of art. 49 TFEU, and the violation of the principle of loyal collaboration, remain absorbed.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

having joined the proceedings,

1) declares that it was not within the power of the State and, for it, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, in agreement with the Ministry of the Interior, to adopt the Decree of October 16, 2024, no. 226, laying down the regulation of the procedures for keeping and completing the electronic service log (FDSE) for the chauffeur-driven hire service (NCC), limited to:

a) art. 4, paragraph 3, which introduces the time constraint of at least twenty minutes between the reservation and the start of the NCC service, for cases where it does not start from the depot or the areas referred to in art. 11, paragraph 6, of Law no. 21 of 1992;

b) arts. 2, paragraph 1, letters h) and m), and 5, which prevent the conclusion of duration contracts with NCC operators by subjects who carry out intermediation activities, even indirectly;

c) arts. 2, paragraph 1, letter b), and 3, which require the NCC provider to exclusively use the ministerial IT application for completing the electronic service log;

2) declares that it was not within the power of the State and, for it, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport to adopt:

a) the circular of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of December 3, 2024, prot. no. 34247 (Clarifications on the operating procedures of the IT system for the completion and management of the Electronic Service Log, regulated by Interministerial Decree of October 26, 2024, no. 226), in points 2 to 6, insofar as they implement arts. 2, paragraph 1, letters b), h) and m), 3, 4, paragraph 3, and 5 of Interministerial Decree no. 226 of 2024;

b) the circular of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport of December 23, 2024, prot. no. 36861 (Progressive release schedule for the functionalities of the Electronic Register for NCC and Taxi and the Electronic Service Log), limited to phases 2, 3 and 4;

3) consequently annuls the aforementioned provisions of the impugned acts.

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

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Registrar

Filed in the Registry on November 4, 2025