JUDGMENT NO. 164

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

has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the judgment concerning the constitutional legitimacy of art. 3, paragraph 1, letter b-bis), of Decree-Law of June 6, 2012, no. 74 (Urgent Measures in Favour of Populations Affected by the Seismic Events that Affected the Territories of the Provinces of Bologna, Modena, Ferrara, Mantua, Reggio Emilia, and Rovigo, on May 20 and 29, 2012), converted, with amendments, into Law of August 1, 2012, no. 122, promoted by the Council of State, Sixth Section, in the proceedings between Azienda agricola Levante di Romani F.lli ss and the Lombardy Region, by order of January 20, 2025, registered under no. 26 of the ordinary register of 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 8, first special series, of 2025.

Having seen the memorandum of appearance of Azienda agricola Levante di Romani F.lli ss and the memorandum of intervention of the President of the Council of Ministers;

Having heard at the public hearing of September 24, 2025, the Reporting Judge Roberto Nicola Cassinelli;

Having heard the lawyers Gianfredo Giatti and Angelo Convertini for Azienda agricola Levante di Romani F.lli ss and the State Attorney Salvatore Adamo for the President of the Council of Ministers;

Deliberated in the council chamber of September 24, 2025.

Facts Considered

1.– By order of January 20, 2025, registered as no. 26 of the ordinary register of 2025, the Council of State, Sixth Section, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding art. 3, paragraph 1, letter b-bis), of Decree-Law of June 6, 2012, no. 74 (Urgent Measures in Favour of Populations Affected by the Seismic Events that Affected the Territories of the Provinces of Bologna, Modena, Ferrara, Mantua, Reggio Emilia, and Rovigo, on May 20 and 29, 2012), converted, with amendments, into Law of August 1, 2012, no. 122, in reference to Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution.

2.– The referring judge is called to rule on the appeal lodged by Azienda agricola Levante di Romani F.lli ss, seeking the reversal of the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Fourth Section, of May 2, 2022, no. 5439, against the Lombardy Region and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty, and Forestry, both appearing in defense.

2.1.– The TAR Lazio had rejected the appeal filed by Azienda Levante for the annulment of the measure issued by the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Lombardy Region (Decree of August 28, 2014, no. 7903, identification no. 439), whereby the contribution related to interventions connected to the 2012 seismic events was recognized to it in an amount lower than that requested, due to the exclusion of compensation for damages sustained by the product during the maturation or storage phase. Due to the earthquake, the referring judge states, the support structures for the "Mantuanella" cheese wheels, which were undergoing maturation, collapsed, resulting in damage amounting to EUR 1.8 million, as per the July 2012 appraisal.

2.2.– Regarding the relevance of the questions, the Council of State emphasizes that the challenged measure constitutes a direct application of art. 3, paragraph 1, letter b-bis), of D.L. no. 74 of 2012, as converted, which provides for the contribution for damages sustained by products undergoing maturation or storage, as defined under Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of the Council of March 20, 2006, limited to PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) and PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) products.

Given the continuing validity of the aforementioned provision, the appeal should be dismissed, as there are no grounds for inadmissibility of the appeal: the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Lombardy Region, according to which the appellant company should have challenged the Commissarial Ordinance of February 20, 2013, no. 13, issued by the President of the Lombardy Region acting as Delegate Commissioner for the seismic emergency, which is the general implementing act of D.L. no. 74 of 2012, as converted, and not waited for the measure granting the contribution that did not include the requested damages for the product in maturation phase, would be without foundation.

The referring judge deems the procedural rule applicable according to which the general act acquires its damaging effect only at the moment of concrete application, especially in the present case, where it would have been difficult for the appellant company to "make a reliable prognosis as to the possible future impact – if and to what extent – on its legal sphere."

The measure under challenge therefore constitutes not only the final act of application of the general ordinance, to which the prevailing jurisprudence attributes the currency and effectiveness of the harm (Reference is made to the Council of State, Fifth Section, Judgment of September 16, 2024, no. 7601), but also the act that, in concrete terms, determined the contribution in an amount and manner inconsistent with the request submitted by the appellant company.

2.3.– The non-manifest groundlessness of the questions is argued based on the examination of the provisions contained in D.L. no. 74 of 2012, as converted.

2.3.1.– Art. 3, paragraph 1, of the aforementioned decree establishes that "[...] the Presidents of the Regions [...] shall establish, by their own provisions adopted in coherence with the criteria established by the Prime Ministerial Decree referred to in Article 2, paragraph 2, on the basis of the damages actually incurred, priorities, methods, and percentages within which contributions may be granted, even in such a way as to fully cover the expenses required for the repair, restoration, or reconstruction of properties, within the limit of the resources allocated for this purpose from the special accounts referred to in Article 2, without prejudice to regional peculiarities. Contributions shall be granted, net of any insurance reimbursements [...]”.

Among the grants provided for by the legislator, letter b) of the same paragraph 1 provides: "the granting, upon presentation of a sworn appraisal, of contributions in favour of productive, industrial, agricultural, zootechnical, commercial, artisanal, tourism, and professional activities, including activities relating to non-commercial entities, public bodies, and organizations, foundations, or associations with the sole purpose of solidarity or trade unionism, and services, including social, socio-health, and health services, having their registered office or production units in the municipalities affected by the seismic crisis that have suffered serious damage to stocks and fixed assets instrumental to their activity owned by them. The granting of contributions to dairy businesses damaged by the seismic events shall be assessed by the competent authority by December 31, 2014; the principle of certainty and objective determinability of the contribution shall be considered respected if the contribution itself is known by December 31, 2014.”

For the purposes of this case, letter b-bis) of the same paragraph 1, inserted during the conversion, provides for "the granting, upon presentation of a sworn appraisal, of contributions for the compensation of economic damage suffered by products undergoing maturation or storage pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of March 20, 2006, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural and food products, in structures located in the territories referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, of this decree.”

2.4.– The application of the last-mentioned provision resulted in a "different mode of treatment in the liquidation of damages between producers of PDO and non-PDO cheese in the same geographical area,” which the referring judge deems incompatible with the constitutional principles established by Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution.

2.4.1.– The Council of State observes that, in the face of the same origin of the damages – the earthquake, which affected businesses operating in the involved territories – and the potential identity of the damages themselves, as well as the existence of "similar" processing and aging characteristics of dairy products, "the nature of greater value of the product, while it may entail a quantitatively different damage, does not seem to justify that only the damages sustained by PDO and PGI companies are worthy of contribution in this respect.”

The differentiation on the *whether* (an) of entitlement to the contribution would conflict with Article 3 of the Constitution, given the homogeneity of the situations compared, also considering the purpose of the contribution, which is not to incentivize but to compensate, subject of course to the demonstration of a more significant economic damage due to the higher value of the products involved.

The challenged provision thus produces an unjustified disparity in treatment of "apparently homogeneous situations" (Reference is made to this Court's Judgment no. 234 of 2006), in that the rationale supporting the provision of compensation unreasonably does not apply to all companies in the area affected by the earthquake that can demonstrate having suffered damage to the product during the maturation phase.

2.5.– The alleged disparity of treatment would entail, according to the referring judge, a violation of Article 41 of the Constitution, as the allocation of a financial aid "to limited and essentially predetermined recipients” would have altered the conditions of operators in the agricultural production market in the area affected by the seismic events, to the advantage of the businesses receiving compensation (Reference is made to this Court's Judgment no. 186 of 2022).

2.6.– The Council of State also refers to the constitutional jurisprudence according to which provisions such as the one in question, "not incidentally added during the conversion phase and ultimately concerning specific subjects,” although not absolutely incompatible with the constitutional structure of powers, enter into tension with the principle of equality and, therefore, must be subjected to strict constitutional review, to verify the non-arbitrariness and reasonableness of the legislative choice (References are made to this Court's Judgments no. 116 of 2020 and no. 20 of 2012).

The constitutional review must therefore proceed to evaluate the criteria that inspired the legislative choices and the methods of implementation (References are made to this Court's Judgments no. 49 of 2021 and no. 270 of 2010), and not stop at verifying a sufficient reason to justify the choice to intervene with a measure-law or, in any case, with a provision that benefits specific identifiable subjects.

It must also be verified the suitability of the means adopted in relation to the pursued objective and the proportionality between the means itself and the needs to be satisfied, in terms of the least possible sacrifice of other constitutionally protected principles and values.

2.7.– In the present case, the referring judge continues, the legislator's choice to direct contributions for the compensation of damages sustained by the product during maturation to only one category of businesses would be unreasonable and disproportionate, since the potential greater value of PDO dairy production could have been protected by providing for a different quantification of the contribution.

3.– The President of the Council of Ministers intervened in the proceedings, represented and defended by the State Attorney's Office, to request that the questions be declared unfounded.

3.1.– According to the intervener, the alleged total and unfounded exclusion from the contribution of certain damaged parties, under the same factual conditions, does not exist, and therefore Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution invoked by the referring judge are not violated.

The legislator identified different types of support measures for those affected by the earthquake, as demonstrated by the fact that the appellant company in the proceedings before the lower court was not entirely excluded from the contribution for the damages caused by the earthquake, but only from the specific item related to the damage sustained by the product during the maturation phase, being the recipient of a different contribution quantification compared to PDO and PGI producing companies, to which this item was recognized.

In this way, the State Attorney's Office notes, the same result sought by the referring judge was achieved through the direct application of the principle of proportionality in the quantitative disbursement of a single form of contribution.

The State Attorney's Office further notes that the reasonableness that underpins the principle of equality laid down in Article 3 of the Constitution is found where different treatment is afforded to subjects in different situations. As clarified by constitutional jurisprudence, the principle of equality is violated if, in the face of objectively homogeneous situations, there is a differentiated legal regulation that results in arbitrary and unjustified discrimination (References are made to Judgments no. 111 of 1981 and no. 96 of 1980).

This would not be the case here, where the different treatment, consisting of granting a greater contribution only to companies benefiting from PDO and PGI designations, compared to those whose products lack these designations, stems from the need to provide greater protection to high-value products, especially since, contrary to what the referring judge claims, the contribution under challenge has not only a compensatory nature but also the function of encouraging the recovery and continuation of high-quality production.

3.2.– PDO and PGI products are subject to a longer, more complex, and costly production process, because it is conditioned on the strict execution of the production specification, and consequently, the loss of inventory has a more critical impact than for other productions.

3.3.– The intervener finally refers to the parliamentary documentation concerning the challenged provision, specifically the opinion of May 31, 2012, of the Thirteenth Standing Committee (Agriculture) of the Chamber of Deputies, on the bill A.C. 5263 (for the conversion of D.L. no. 74 of 2012), which accounts for the need to provide a "specific incentive” for the companies in question, "also for the primary purpose of preserving access to bank credit reserved for PDO and PGI producers through the establishment of a revolving pledge on long-matured products.”

This form of guarantee was at that time provided only for long-matured PDO dairy products, by art. 7 of Law no. 122 of 2001 (Provisions modifying and integrating the legislation governing the agricultural and forestry sector).

3.4.– In conclusion, the State Attorney's Office reiterates the reasonableness of the selectivity of the measure, considering the peculiarity of PDO and PGI products, whose recognition implies not only higher costs for producers but also significant value in terms of exports, with repercussions on the image of Italy in the agri-food market in terms of economy and employment.

4.– With a memorandum filed on March 10, 2025, Azienda agricola Levante di Romani F.lli ss, in the person of its legal representative, appeared in the incidental judgment to request a declaration of unconstitutionality of the provisions reported in the Council of State's referral order.

4.1.– The party extensively argues the reasons for the illegitimacy of the Commissarial Ordinance no. 13 of 2013, as discriminatory and anti-competitive, and of the subsequent Decree no. 7903 of 2014, by which the Lombardy Region granted it contributions for an amount lower than that requested.

While agreeing with the doubt raised by the Council of State regarding art. 3, paragraph 1, letter b-bis), of D.L. no. 74 of 2012, as converted, the party believes that the discriminatory treatment to the detriment of non-PDO cheese producers is primarily attributable to the Commissarial Ordinance no. 13 of 2013. This provision, it is argued, introduced the contested differentiation in the absence of national or European legislative support, considering Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits agreements, decisions, and concerted practices that may affect freedom of establishment and competition, and Article 107 of the same Treaty, which protects competition.

In this case, the economic aid allocated and disbursed to the Grana Padano Consortium allegedly distorted competition and the domestic market, as evidenced by the fact that only Azienda Levante continued its activity despite the earthquake damage, while the other non-consortium dairies operating in the same district went bankrupt.

4.2.– Assuming that this case involves a State aid that favored a group of businesses to the detriment of a competing company, the party refers to Community jurisprudence on the incompatibility of State aids with the common market (Court of Justice of the European Union, First Chamber, Judgment of October 14, 2010, Case C-67/09, Nuova Agricast srl), and on the principle of equal treatment (Court of Justice of the European Union, Third Chamber, Judgment of April 14, 2005, Case C-110/03, Kingdom of Belgium, paragraph 71, with further references).

Constitutional jurisprudence is also referenced (inter alia, Judgment no. 4 of 2022), according to which the notion of competition under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution must necessarily reflect that operating at the Community level, and therefore includes both legislative measures to counter acts and behaviors of undertakings that negatively affect the competitive structure of the markets, and legislative measures of promotion, aimed at eliminating limits and constraints on the free exercise of entrepreneurial capacity and competition between undertakings, or at prefiguring guarantee competitive procedures that ensure the widest market opening to all economic operators.

4.3.– The party finally observes that the PDO certification is limited to designating a product originating in a country and a region, whose characteristics are essentially or exclusively due to the geographical environment of origin, a phrase that includes natural and human factors, but is not always synonymous with quality, whereas Azienda Levante, a small-scale enterprise, follows the entire food chain and the final product, although not PDO certified, is certified "No GMO" and "lactose-free."

4.4.– The party concludes by requesting a declaration of constitutional illegitimacy of the provisions reported in the referral order.

5.– On August 27, 2025, the State Attorney's Office filed a memorandum, in which it referred to the arguments made in the memorandum of intervention, insisting on the declaration that the questions are unfounded.

Considerations in Law

1.– The Council of State, Sixth Section, in the order indicated in the heading (ord. reg. no. 26 of 2025), raised – with reference to Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution – questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning art. 3, paragraph 1, letter b-bis), of D.L. no. 74 of 2012, as converted, in so far as it provides for the granting of contributions for the compensation of damages caused by the seismic events of May 20 and 29, 2012, in the provinces of Bologna, Modena, Ferrara, Mantua, Reggio Emilia, and Rovigo, to products undergoing maturation or storage, limited to PDO and PGI products.

1.1.– The referring judge must rule on the appeal lodged by Azienda agricola Levante di Romani F.lli ss, seeking the reversal of the judgment of the TAR Lazio no. 5439 of 2022, against the Lombardy Region and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty, and Forestry, both appearing in the main proceedings.

1.2.– The TAR rejected the appeal filed by Azienda Levante for the annulment of the decree of the Lombardy Region no. 7903 of 2014, by which it was recognized the contribution for damages sustained as a consequence of the 2012 seismic events in an amount lower than that requested, due to the exclusion of the damage sustained by the product during the maturation phase.

2.– Regarding the relevance of the questions, the referring judge clarifies that the challenged measure constitutes a direct application of art. 3, paragraph 1, letter b-bis), of D.L. no. 74 of 2012, as converted, and that therefore the appeal should be dismissed, as there are no grounds for inadmissibility of the appeal.

2.1.– As for the non-manifest groundlessness, the violation of Article 3 of the Constitution is alleged due to the disparity of treatment resulting from the exclusion of non-PDO dairy products from the contribution for damages caused by the earthquake to the product during the maturation phase.

The asserted homogeneity between the compared situations, which would derive from the identical origin of the damages, the potential identity of the same, and the "similar" processing and aging characteristics of PDO and non-PDO dairy products, would render the differentiation concerning the *whether* (an) of entitlement to the contribution provided for by the challenged provision—limited to PDO dairy products during the maturation phase—incompatible with Article 3 of the Constitution. According to the referring judge, in fact, "the nature of greater value of the product, while it may entail a quantitatively different damage, does not seem to justify that only the damages sustained by PDO and PGI companies are worthy of contribution in this respect,” especially since the rationale for the contribution is not to incentivize but merely to compensate.

Therefore, there would be an unjustified disparity in treatment of "apparently homogeneous situations” (Reference is made to this Court's Judgment no. 234 of 2006), and unreasonably, contrary to the purpose of the legislative intervention – compensation and not incentive – the challenged provision would not have included all dairy production companies operating in the areas affected by the earthquake.

2.2.– The disparity of treatment and unreasonableness would lead to a violation of Article 41 of the Constitution, as the allocation of a financial aid "to limited and essentially predetermined recipients” would lead to the alteration of the conditions of operators in the agricultural production market in the areas affected by the seismic events, to the advantage of the businesses receiving compensation (Reference is made to this Court's Judgment no. 186 of 2022).

Since this is a provision added during the conversion of the challenged decree-law and concerning specific subjects, the referring judge believes that a strict review of constitutional legitimacy should take place, to verify the non-arbitrariness and reasonableness of the legislative choice (References are made to this Court's Judgments no. 116 of 2020 and no. 20 of 2012), as well as the suitability of the means adopted in relation to the pursued objective and the proportionality between the means itself and the needs to be satisfied, in terms of the least possible sacrifice of other constitutional principles.

3.– The questions are unfounded.

4.– In the preamble, the context in which the challenged provision is placed must be briefly outlined.

4.1.– In the aftermath of the seismic events of May 20 and 29, 2012, the legislator intervened with D.L. no. 74 of June 6, 2012, to support the populations, businesses, and public and private entities affected by the calamity, in order to facilitate the reconstruction, economic recovery, and assistance processes in the affected territories.

As is clear from the parliamentary documentation (bill A.C. 5263 for conversion into law), on May 31, 2012, the Thirteenth Standing Committee (Agriculture) of the Chamber of Deputies had approved a resolution on the necessary interventions to address the damage suffered by the agri-food sector in the Emilia-Romagna Region.

In the draft opinion of July 3, 2012, the same Committee reported on the investigation carried out through informal hearings with the regional councilors for agriculture of the affected regions, representatives of agricultural associations, associations of PDO and PGI production protection consortia, and land reclamation and irrigation consortia.

Following the investigation, the Committee expressed a favorable opinion on the conversion of D.L. no. 74 of 2012 into law, deeming it necessary to introduce amendments, particularly to art. 3, paragraph 1, to provide for the granting, upon presentation of a sworn appraisal, of contributions for the compensation of economic damage suffered by PDO and PGI products undergoing maturation and/or storage, in structures located in the affected territories.

To support the amendment, it was highlighted that the earthquake had caused particularly significant and specific damage to some products with protected designation or geographical indication, which should be taken into account both for the importance of the productions themselves and to ensure their continuity, as PDO and PGI products constituted a pledge for access to bank credit.

5.– The measures provided for by D.L. no. 74 of 2012, as converted, in support of agri-food businesses, were authorized by the European Commission decision C(2012) 9471 of December 19, 2012, concerning State aid for the agricultural sector SA.35482 (2012/N).

The European Commission's decision is based on the recognition of the particular importance of the productive fabric present in the territories affected by the earthquake, citing, by way of example, the dairy industries producing Grana Padano and Parmigiano Reggiano; it emphasizes that the damage caused to agri-food businesses resulted in a significant reduction in gross domestic production, leading to damage to the entire food production chain; it also highlights the strongly negative impact recorded on some products of origin, such as Grana Padano PDO, Parmigiano Reggiano PDO, and Aceto Balsamico di Modena PDO (paragraph 15).

5.1.– The interventions authorized by the Commission, provided for by D.L. no. 74 of 2012, as converted, can be summarized as follows: i) contributions for the reconstruction, repair, and restoration of productive properties (art. 3, paragraph 1, letter a); ii) contributions in favor of productive, agricultural, and zootechnical activities that have suffered serious damage to stocks and instrumental assets (art. 3, paragraph 1, letter b); iii) contributions for the compensation of damages sustained by products undergoing maturation or storage as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of March 20, 2006, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural and food products, in structures located in the affected territories (art. 3, paragraph 1, letter b-bis); iv) contributions for temporary relocation (art. 3, paragraph 1, letter f).

6.– Briefly, it is necessary to frame the regulation of quality schemes for agricultural and food products, which this Court has addressed several times (inter alia, most recently Judgments no. 75 and no. 40 of 2023).

6.1.– As emerges from the provision under challenge, which refers to EC Regulation no. 510/2006 to indicate the recipients of the contribution, the regulation of PDO and PGI productions is of European origin and focuses on the system of registration, protection, and enhancement of products characterized by particular qualities, whose reputation is due to the geographical environment of origin, as well as specific production methods.

6.2.– In 2012, when the legislator intervened, the matter was governed by EC Regulation no. 510/2006, subsequently repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) no. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 21, 2012, on quality schemes for agricultural and food products, which in turn was repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) no. 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 11, 2024, on geographical indications for wines, spirit drinks, and agricultural products, as well as traditional guaranteed specialities and optional quality indications for agricultural products, currently in force.

The succession of sources has not affected the substance of the regulation, characterized by the continuity of a scheme that involves a complex production procedure, which requires producing companies to observe a rigorous specification and therefore provides, in order to ensure the correct exploitation of the communication potential linked to the use of PDO and PGI marks, as well as the quality of these products, that public authorities, designated by the Member States, carry out accurate controls, themselves reinforced by a specific sanctioning system.

6.3.– This Court has already affirmed that the establishment of a system of protected designations of origin and geographical indications at the European level is aimed, on the one hand, at guaranteeing producers of products linked to a geographical area a fair remuneration for the qualities of their products and the uniform protection of names as intellectual property rights in the Union territory; on the other hand, at providing consumers with clear information about the properties that confer added value to the products (Judgment no. 40 of 2023, points 2.1. and 2.2. of the Considerations in Law).

The definitions of PDO and PGI therefore refer to the quality of the product (Judgment no. 75 of 2023, point 4 of the Considerations in Law) and the uniform protection regime at the European level aims to ensure equal conditions of competition between producers of products benefiting from the protected designations.

6.4.– At the national level, in addition to regulations on controls – Law of April 24, 1998, no. 128, concerning "Provisions for the fulfillment of obligations arising from Italy's membership in the European Communities. (Community Law 1995-1997)” – and sanctions – Legislative Decree of November 19, 2004, no. 297, concerning "Sanctioning provisions in application of Council Regulation (EEC) no. 2081/92, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural and food products” –, PDO and PGI productions are the recipients of a specific regulation regarding access to credit.

In fact, only they can use the financing method called revolving pledge, originally provided for by Law of July 24, 1985, no. 401 (Rules on the establishment of pledges on hams with protected designation of origin), subsequently extended first to long-matured PDO dairy products by art. 7 of Law no. 122 of 2001 and, finally, to all agricultural and food products with protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication, including wine products and spirit drinks, by art. 78, paragraphs 2-duodec, 2-terdecies, 2-quaterdecies, of Decree-Law of March 17, 2020, no. 18 (Measures to strengthen the National Health Service and economic support for families, workers, and businesses related to the COVID-19 epidemiological emergency), converted, with amendments, into Law of April 24, 2020, no. 27.

6.4.1.– The mechanism characterizing the revolving pledge allows for the replacement over time of the PDO or PGI products pledged with others of equivalent value, allowing the producing company to maintain its inventory as security for the bank loan. The company can thus sell older products – in this case, aged agri-food products – and replace them with newly produced ones, without having to enter into new pledge agreements, thus maintaining credit coverage and continuing production activities.

7.– The legal and jurisprudential framework outlined above indicates that the situations compared by the referring judge are not homogeneous, both with regard to the characteristics of PDO products, which are not comparable, and, upstream, to the production process and the related costs incurred by the companies that produce them.

7.1.– As already highlighted, PDO production is particularly complex and costly, as the producer is required to comply with a rigorous specification, compliance with which is guaranteed by punctual controls and backed by significant sanctions.

The product, which requires a more or less long maturation phase, at the end of which it acquires the characteristics corresponding to the recognition mark, cannot be placed on the market as a PDO product before the conclusion of this phase and therefore, in the event of damage during the maturation phase, the producer cannot recover the cost of production.

The negative economic impact of the damaging event is therefore greater for the company that has borne the costs of PDO production, with the further consequence – explicit in the parliamentary works – of the potential interruption of access to bank credit obtained through the mechanism of revolving pledge on the products. The product damaged during maturation cannot replace, for guarantee purposes, the one previously pledged, as it does not possess the characteristics of the PDO product and therefore does not have equivalent value.

8.– In the absence of homogeneity of the situations compared, the different treatment provided for by the challenged provision cannot constitute a violation of the principle of equality.

8.1.– According to the constant jurisprudence of this Court, if "the principle of equality expresses a judgment of relation by virtue of which equal situations must correspond to the identical regulation and, conversely, differentiated regulations must correspond to different situations, this implies that the examination of the conformity of a rule to that principle must proceed according to a dynamic model, focusing on the 'why' a specific regulation operates, within the egalitarian fabric of the legal system, that specific distinction, and therefore drawing the necessary conclusions regarding the correct use of regulatory power” (Judgment no. 7 of 2024, point 16 of the Considerations in Law; Judgments no. 43 of 2022, no. 276 of 2020, and no. 241 of 2014).

Furthermore, this Court has specified that the violation of the principle of equality exists only if identical, or in any case homogeneous, situations are regulated in an unjustified manner differently, and that, conversely, Article 3 of the Constitution is not violated when non-assimilable situations correspond to a different regulation.

Therefore, the hermeneutic premise – namely that of the homogeneity of the compared situations – from which the referring judge proceeds is erroneous (similarly Judgment no. 172 of 2021, point 9 of the Considerations in Law).

8.2.– Regarding the aspect of the reasonableness of the challenged provision, it must be premised that this is not a measure-law, in the sense in which this abstract hypothesis is defined by the jurisprudence of this Court (inter alia, Judgments no. 186 of 2022, no. 181 of 2019, and no. 24 of 2018).

The provision in question introduced a measure that constitutes a segment of the broader legislative intervention aimed at providing compensation to the populations and businesses present in the territories affected by the natural calamity, within which the legislator calibrated contributions on the needs of the businesses, nor is the impact of the rule on a limited number of recipients – PDO and PGI producers – sufficient to render it a "singular rule” or a rule for a single case. Rather, it resulted in a different quantification of the overall contribution due to each company in the agri-food sector, since only the compensation for damages sustained by products undergoing maturation was limited to PDO and PGI production companies.

The legislative choice is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or disproportionate expression of legislative discretion.

9.– Having excluded the violation of Article 3 of the Constitution under both aspects invoked by the referring judge, the alleged conflict with Article 41 of the Constitution, which protects the freedom of economic initiative and competition, cannot be established either.

9.1.– A problem of differentiation of the conditions of market operators would imply the existence of a common market between PDO and non-PDO products and producers, within which the granting of contributions to one category and not to the other would become appreciable in terms of alteration of competition. But a common market does not exist, as only PDO productions operate in the European market, within which they compete with counterpart producers from other countries (Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgments of September 9, 2021, Case C-783/19, Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne, points 37-39, 52, 55 and 58; of December 17, 2020, Case C-490/19, Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier, points 35, 40 and 41; of December 19, 2018, Case C-367/17, S, point 24; of June 7, 2018, Case C-44/17, Scotch Whisky Association, point 51).

9.2.– Furthermore, and more generally, the close logical-systemic connection between Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution (inter alia, Judgment no. 270 of 2010 and, more recently, Judgment no. 218 of 2021) entails that if the challenged provision is not incompatible with the principle of equality, nor arbitrary, disproportionate, or incongruous, the violation of the freedom of economic initiative and competition cannot stem from it.

10.– In conclusion, the questions must be declared unfounded in reference to all the parameters invoked.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of art. 3, paragraph 1, letter b-bis), of Decree-Law of June 6, 2012, no. 74 (Urgent Measures in Favour of Populations Affected by the Seismic Events that Affected the Territories of the Provinces of Bologna, Modena, Ferrara, Mantua, Reggio Emilia, and Rovigo, on May 20 and 29, 2012), converted, with amendments, into Law of August 1, 2012, no. 122, raised, with reference to Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution, by the Council of State, Sixth Section, with the order in the heading.

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

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Chancery Director

Filed in the Chancery on November 4, 2025