Sentenza n. 188 del 2025

Judgment No. 188 of 2025 - AI translated

JUDGMENT NO. 188

YEAR 2025

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI,
has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the constitutional legitimacy proceedings concerning Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Law of the Puglia Region of November 21, 2024, no. 30 (Protection of the minimum wage in the contracts of the Puglia Region), and Article 21 of the Law of the Puglia Region of November 29, 2024, no. 39 (Financial and other provisions. Amendment to the Budget Forecast for the financial year 2024 and the multi-year period 2024-2026), initiated by the President of the Council of Ministers with appeals notified on January 24 and 29, 2025, respectively, filed with the Registry on January 25 and 29, 2025, registered under appeal numbers 5 and 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, first special series, numbers 8 and 9 of the year 2025.

Having reviewed the establishment documents of the Puglia Region;

having heard Judge Rapporteur Stefano Petitti at the public hearing of November 5, 2025;

having heard State Attorney Davide Di Giorgio for the President of the Council of Ministers, as well as Advocate Isabella Fornelli for the Puglia Region;

deliberated in the Chamber of Council on November 5, 2025.

Facts Considered

1.– With an appeal notified on January 24, 2025, and filed the following January 25, registered under appeal no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Law of the Puglia Region of November 21, 2024, no. 30 (Protection of the minimum wage in the contracts of the Puglia Region), published in the Official Gazette of the Puglia Region, November 25, 2024, no. 95, in reference to Articles 36, first paragraph, 39, fourth paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letters l) and m), of the Constitution.

1.1.– The appellant states that Article 2, paragraph 1, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 provides that the Region, local health authorities, hospitals, Sanitaservice companies, regional agencies, and all regional instrumental bodies must indicate in tender procedures, in line with Article 11 of Legislative Decree no. 36 of March 31, 2023 (Public Contracts Code in implementation of Article 1 of Law no. 78 of June 21, 2022, concerning the delegation to the Government in matters of public contracts), that personnel employed in the works, services, and supplies subject to public contracts and concessions shall be applied the most relevant collective agreement for the activity performed, entered into by the most representative employer and trade union organizations, without prejudice to more favorable treatment.

Paragraph 2 of the same Article 2, the challenged provision, establishes that "The entities referred to in paragraph 1 shall verify that the contracts indicated in the tender procedures provide for a non-derogable minimum economic treatment equal to nine euros per hour.”

The appellant specifies that shortly after its entry into force, Article 2, paragraph 2, was amended by the Puglia legislator with the Law of the Puglia Region of November 29, 2024, no. 39 (Financial and other provisions. Amendment to the Budget Forecast for the financial year 2024 and the multi-year period 2024-2026), whose Article 21 provided that: "In Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law of November 21, 2024, no. 30 (Protection of the minimum wage in the contracts of the Puglia Region), the words ‘a minimum economic treatment’ shall be replaced by the following: ‘a minimum table wage’”. Consequently, the current version of the provision reads: "The entities referred to in paragraph 1 shall verify that the contracts indicated in the tender procedures provide for a non-derogable minimum table wage equal to nine euros per hour.”

1.2.– With the first ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 conflicts with Article 36, first paragraph, of the Constitution, as the legal system does not provide for a minimum wage established by law or by other binding legal provisions, and with Article 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, due to violation of the parameters established by the constitutional norm to safeguard the autonomy of collective bargaining. Furthermore, since the matter of remuneration is currently regulated solely by collective bargaining, the regional legislation infringes upon the autonomy guaranteed to it by Articles 36 and 39 of the Constitution.

The appellant also notes that Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 19, 2022, on adequate minimum wages in the European Union, although aimed at ensuring dignified conditions for workers in the Union, does not establish a minimum wage threshold, recognizing the possibility for collective bargaining to determine minimum wage levels in individual sectors.

The introduction of a non-derogable minimum wage at the regional level, therefore, would conflict with constitutional principles regarding remuneration, in addition to being a limiting factor on free competition among economic operators.

1.3.– With the second ground of appeal, the appellant contends that the provision of a non-derogable minimum economic treatment of nine euros per hour in the contracts indicated in the tender procedures affects the regulation of the private subordinate employment relationship in violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letters l) and m), of the Constitution.

The determination of wages constitutes a peculiar aspect of the regulation of both private and public employment relationships and, according to the settled case law of this Court, any norm regulating the contract, as the regulating source of the subordinate employment relationship, should be classified under the subject matter of civil law (reference is made to Judgment no. 50 of 2005, on Law no. 30 of February 14, 2003, providing for "Delegation to the Government on employment and the labor market,” the so-called "Biagi” law), excluding regional intervention, whereas the needs for uniformity and equality that strongly permeate the regulation of the employment contract justify the exclusive legislative power of the State pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letters l) and m), of the Constitution.

2.– The Puglia Region appeared in the proceedings, in the person of the President of the Regional Government, with a document filed on February 27, 2025, requesting that the questions be declared inadmissible and, in any case, unfounded.

2.1.– The regional defense first illustrates the regulatory context in which Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 is situated, as part of a series of regional regulatory interventions aimed at ensuring decent working conditions and guaranteeing the respect of workers' rights (reference is made to the Law of the Puglia Region of May 30, 2024, no. 19, concerning "Provisions for quality and safety of work, for combating contractual dumping, and for employment stability in public works or concession contracts executed in the regional territory”). The challenged provision, as appears from the accompanying report, is aimed at combating the phenomenon of so-called contractual dumping, whereby the multiplication of employer and union designations and the coexistence in the same sectors of multiple collective agreements, some of which signed by organizations lacking adequate representativeness, generate downward competition, to the detriment of labor costs, contractual protections, and the quality of the offer, thus favoring so-called "working poverty” (reference is made to the Court of Cassation, Labor Section, Judgment of October 2, 2023, no. 27713).

2.2.– The regional defense first objects to the inadmissibility of the appeal due to a lack of correspondence between the challenged provision and the one subject to governmental authorization (reference is made to the judgments of this Court no. 134 of 2023 and no. 128 of 2018). The governmental resolution refers the challenge to Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 as published in Official Gazette of the Puglia Region no. 95 of 2024, thus in its original wording, while the attached ministerial report concerns only the provision already amended; the appeal, in turn, refers alternatively and indifferently to the original version, concerning the "minimum economic treatment,” and to the version resulting from the amendment introduced by Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, concerning the "minimum table wage,” which is the subject of a separate challenge in the proceeding registered under no. 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry.

Since these are different legal institutions—the minimum economic treatment being relevant to the totality of emoluments paid to the worker in a full and continuous manner, while remuneration corresponds to the base pay and ancillary financial entitlements provided for in the various National Collective Labor Agreements (CCNL)—the conditions for transferring the issue to the new norm do not even exist, based on the principle of effectiveness of constitutional protection for the parties in actions (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 220 of 2021).

2.3.– Regarding the first ground of appeal, the Region objects to the inadmissibility of the claim under Article 36, first paragraph, of the Constitution due to a lack of reasoning, as it is not clear how the regional provision conflicts with the principle of proportionate and sufficient remuneration, and due to irrelevance, as it does not affect remuneration in individual and collective labor contracts, but only the choice of the CCNL applicable in the tender.

On the merits, the claim is unfounded, as the direct applicability of Article 36 of the Constitution and the nature of the constitutional minimum wage as a perfect subjective right are established (reference is made to the judgments of this Court no. 559 of 1987, no. 74 of 1966, and no. 30 of 1960, as well as the Court of Cassation, Labor Section, Judgment of October 2, 2023, no. 27711).

2.3.1.– According to the regional defense, the challenge under Article 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution is also inadmissible as "obscure,” as is the reference, generic and unsupported by any constitutional parameter, to the freedom of competition among economic operators.

2.3.2.– On the merits, Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution do not establish any legislative reservation for collective bargaining in matters of wages (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 106 of 1962), nor is such a reservation imposed by Directive (EU) 2022/2041, which, on the contrary, expressly contemplates the possibility of a minimum wage provided for by law, as is the case in the majority of European Union Member States.

The regional legislator, aware that collective bargaining far exceeds the percentage indicated in the directive, standing at almost 100 percent (reference is made to the study by the National Council for Economics and Labor, "Elements for reflection on the minimum wage in Italy,” October 12, 2023), provided for the minimum table wage of nine euros per hour as a parameter derived from an indexing carried out against official statistical sources.

2.3.3.– There are also numerous legislative provisions that promote the application of conditions no less favorable than those provided for by the collective agreement through the provision of advantages or benefits, among which access to public contracts and concessions should be included, given that the entrepreneur’s choice to participate in the tender remains free (reference is made to Article 36 of Law no. 300 of May 20, 1970, concerning "Provisions on the protection of the freedom and dignity of workers, freedom of association, and trade union activity in the workplace and provisions on job placement,” and the judgment of this Court no. 226 of 1998, which declared it partially unconstitutional; Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code, as amended by Legislative Decree no. 209 of December 31, 2024, concerning "Supplementary and corrective provisions to the Public Contracts Code, referred to in Legislative Decree no. 36 of March 31, 2023”).

Similarly, according to the Region, numerous legal provisions use the reference to collective bargaining qualified as an external parameter for the assessment of the wage treatment suitable under Article 36, first paragraph, of the Constitution (citing Article 16, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 117 of July 3, 2017, concerning "Third Sector Code, pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 2, letter b, of Law no. 106 of June 6, 2016”; Article 1 of Law no. 233 of December 31, 2012, concerning "Fair compensation in the journalistic sector,” with reference to self-employed journalists; Article 603-bis of the Penal Code, introduced by Article 12, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law no. 138 of August 13, 2011, concerning "Further urgent measures for financial stabilization and development,” converted, with amendments, into Law no. 148 of September 14, 2011, on illegal intermediation and labor exploitation; Article 54-bis, paragraph 16, of Decree-Law no. 50 of April 24, 2017, concerning "Urgent provisions on finance, initiatives for local authorities, further interventions for areas affected by seismic events and measures for development,” converted, with amendments, into Law no. 96 of June 21, 2017, on occasional work performance; Article 203, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law no. 34 of May 19, 2020, concerning "Urgent measures on health, support for work and the economy, as well as social policies related to the COVID-19 epidemiological emergency,” converted, with amendments, into Law no. 77 of July 17, 2020, on the minimum economic treatment for air transport personnel; Article 7, paragraph 4, of Decree-Law no. 248 of December 31, 2007, concerning "Extension of deadlines provided for by legislative provisions and urgent provisions on finance,” converted, with amendments, into Law no. 31 of February 28, 2008, on cooperative societies, and the judgment of this Court no. 51 of 2015).

2.3.4.– The regional defense also invokes recent judgments of the Court of Cassation which, in proceedings concerning workers hired also from contractors of public bodies or in-house companies, recognized the power of the judge to reasonably deviate from the remuneration established by national collective bargaining when it conflicts with the criteria of proportionality and sufficiency under Article 36 of the Constitution (Cass., no. 27713 and no. 27711 of 2023, as well as Court of Cassation, Labor Section, Judgments of October 10, 2023, no. 28323, no. 28321 and no. 28320, and October 2, 2023, no. 27769). Furthermore, the regional defense extensively cites the opinion of the National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC) of December 19, 2023, no. 588 issued in pre-litigation proceedings, with reference to administrative jurisprudence which has recognized the administration's power to review the CCNL proposed in order to ascertain that the wage level complies with Article 36 of the Constitution.

In light of the indicated factors, the regional legislator legitimately established a minimum wage threshold aimed at preventing companies bearing a higher labor cost from being disadvantaged and having to appeal against the award to another company that proved more competitive by applying treatment that violated the constitutional precept.

2.3.5.– Still in relation to the regulation of public contracts, the regional defense cites Article 26 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of March 31, 2004, on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works, supply, and service contracts, which allows contracting authorities to require specific conditions, including social and environmental ones, regarding the execution of the contract, provided they are compatible with Community law and specified in the tender notice or in the specifications, a provision substantially reproduced in Article 70 of the current Directive (EU) 2014/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council of February 26, 2014, on public contracts, which repeals Directive 2004/18/EC, where the reference is to economic, innovation-related, environmental, social, or employment-related considerations.

The Court of Justice held that regional legislation imposing on the bidder and subcontractors the commitment to pay a minimum wage to staff is legitimate (Court of Justice of the European Union, Fourth Chamber, Judgment of November 17, 2015, Case C-115/14, RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG). Similarly, the challenged provision would establish conditions under which economic operators remain free to choose whether to participate in the tender, thus balancing the freedom of economic initiative and fair competition with social values.

2.3.6.– The explanatory report to the Public Contracts Code drafted by the Council of State, moreover, according to the Region, clarifies that Article 11, to which paragraph 1 of Article 2 of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 refers, which is not challenged, does not appear to conflict with Article 39 of the Constitution, as it is limited to indicating the contractual conditions that the contractor must apply to personnel, if they freely choose to participate in the tender, accepting exclusion if they deviate from them.

2.3.7.– The Region also observes that the amount of the wage threshold, nine euros per hour, is not contested by the appellant, remaining external to the *thema decidendum*, and that in any case it is an amount already present in a state provision, Article 54-bis, paragraph 16, of Decree-Law no. 50 of 2017, as converted, regarding occasional work contracts.

In this regard, further national provisions identifying external parameters relating to the payment of minimum contributions on wages from private subordinate employment are detailed, as is the circular of the National Institute for Social Security (INPS) of January 20, 2025, no. 26 on the value of the legal contribution minimum for the current year, from which the regional defense infers that the amount of nine euros per hour respects the principles of proportionality and sufficiency under Article 36 of the Constitution, ensuring certain costs for contracted or conceded services, with the consequent lack of foundation of the claims regarding the violation of Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution.

2.4.– Regarding the second ground of appeal, concerning jurisdictional profiles, the Region objects to its inadmissibility and lack of foundation.

2.4.1.– The ground would be inadmissible due to erroneous identification of the parameter, as the challenged Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 pertains to regional tender procedures and not to the employment relationship, thus relating to the matter of competition protection under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, which was not invoked in the appeal or in the preparatory acts (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 4 of 2022).

The matter of civil law would, instead, be relevant for the contract execution phase, although the case law of this Court has held that it can also be subsumed under the matter of competition protection (citing judgment no. 44 of 2023).

2.4.2.– The same observation, the irrelevance of the tender phase to the matter of civil law, would in any case lead to a lack of foundation, especially since the regional provision did not introduce any essential service level.

2.4.3.– From another aspect, the Region observes that, since the appellant did not challenge paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the same regional law, the regional competence to adopt a law authorizing its administration, and instrumental bodies, to select collective agreements, pursuant to Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code, remains unchallenged.

Identical measures, according to the Region, could be ordered without legislative intervention, through powers of direction, control, and supervision (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 1 of 1960), as these aspects are also attributable to the residual regional competence in matters of organization under Article 117, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 43 of 2011).

2.4.4.– Finally, according to the regional defense, the reference to essential levels of provision, concerning civil and social rights, as defined by Article 1, paragraph 791, of Law no. 197 of December 29, 2022 (State Budget Forecast for the financial year 2023 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2023-2025), which would have incorporated the judgment of this Court no. 220 of 2021, and the related identification procedure, as defined in the judgment of this Court no. 192 of 2024, is not relevant, as it is not clear how the minimum wage threshold to be considered in the tender procedures is attributable to an essential level of provision (LEP).

3.– With a subsequent appeal notified on January 29, 2025, and filed the same day, registered under appeal no. 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, challenged, among other things, questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, published in the Official Gazette of the Puglia Region, November 30, 2024, no. 11 extraordinary, for violation of Articles 36, first paragraph, 39, fourth paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letters l) and m), of the Constitution.

3.1.– Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024 amends Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, already the subject of the appeal registered under no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, replacing the words "a minimum economic treatment” with the words "a minimum table wage.”

According to the appellant, the prescriptive content of both provisions is the same. The appeal, therefore, adopts and literally reproduces the grounds already formulated in the previous act of challenge.

4.– With a document filed on March 5, 2025, the Puglia Region appeared in the proceedings, in the person of the President of the Regional Government, asserting the inadmissibility and, in any case, the partial lack of foundation of the appeal.

4.1.– The Region objects to the inadmissibility of the appeal, as far as it concerns Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, because the provision and the constitutional parameters are indicated only in the report of the Department for Regional Affairs and not in the resolution of the Council of Ministers authorizing the challenge.

4.2.– As for the other aspects, the Region also literally reproduces all the exceptions of inadmissibility and lack of foundation already raised in its appearance in the parallel proceedings.

5.– In the proceedings concerning appeal no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, the State Attorney General’s Office filed a brief on October 10, 2025.

5.1.– The exception of inadmissibility of the appeal raised by the regional defense is unfounded because the resolution of the Council of Ministers is clear in referring the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 "in the text published in Official Gazette of the Puglia Region no. 95 of November 25, 2024,” so that the references contained in the appeal to the amended provision have a reconstructive function, without altering the scope of the challenge. Only if the original regulation had not been challenged would the inadmissibility of the subsequent appeal perhaps have been alleged, according to the Attorney General’s Office, as the subsequent provision lacks autonomous normative scope and is identical in rationale to the preceding one. The challenge to the original provision, however, attests to the specific and autonomous interest in the appeal, since "having remained in force in its original wording for a period of seven days, it has produced effects in the legal system, potentially still ongoing.”

5.2.– The exception of inadmissibility of the claims concerning the violation of Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, on the premise that Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 challenged is limited to the public contract sector, is also unfounded.

According to the Attorney General’s Office, the principles of proportionality and sufficiency constitute "two facets brought together in a unitary notion of remuneration,” one with a reciprocal function, in relation to the contractual synallagma, the other with a social function, in relation to the value of labor in the republican Constitution (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 559 of 1987).

Both in the merits case law and in the supreme court case law, with the aforementioned judgments of 2023, the review of the "adequacy” of remuneration under Article 36 of the Constitution operates in individual proceedings, on the single employment relationship. Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, in fact, by their very textual content, exclude "the normativization of the minimum wage parameter,” as well as the attribution of *erga omnes* effect to collective regulation, bypassing the mechanism of Article 39 of the Constitution that has never materialized (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 51 of 2015). Therefore, a regional power to heteronomously determine rigid legal minimum wages is not justified, nor is the regional assertion that the challenged provision is limited to legally identifying the requirements for participation in tenders decisive, since it intervenes in an entire labor sector from a wage perspective, curtailing the autonomy of collective bargaining.

5.2.1.– Furthermore, according to the Attorney General’s Office, Directive (EU) 2022/2041, in compliance with Article 153, paragraph 5, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, does not oblige Member States to introduce a legal minimum wage; the Italian system based on collective bargaining and Article 36 of the Constitution (proportionate and sufficient remuneration) is compatible with the directive, whereas a regional law introducing a minimum wage would conflict with constitutional parameters and, in method, with Union law.

The judgment of the Court of Justice, *RegioPost*, moreover, confirms that the manner of determining adequate wages is left to the internal dimension of individual States, which in Italy derives from the combined provisions of Articles 36 and 39 of the Constitution, thus demonstrating that the controversial provision relates to the broader discipline of wage treatment.

5.2.2.– From another aspect, the establishment of a minimum numerical parameter (and not one of adequacy) makes it clear that the challenged provision is not limited to encouraging the adoption of conditions no less favorable than those provided for by collective agreements through access to the benefit of public contracts, but imposes a minimum economic treatment in an entire relevant sector of regional contracting.

5.2.3.– Furthermore, the reference to the explanatory report to the Public Contracts Code is not decisive. Article 11 of the same code provides a model of referral to qualified collective bargaining left to the individual contracting authority, with powers of verification of equivalence and possibility of review of the suitability of the CCNL, without introducing any numerical basis; the challenged provision, instead, causes the source of the legally binding obligation and its amount to shift "from bargaining (with attached adequacy control) to the regional legislative precept,” intervening penetratively in the regulation of employment by private economic operators, especially in the regional health sector.

5.3.– Regarding the second ground of appeal, concerning jurisdictional profiles, the exception of inadmissibility due to erroneous identification of the parameter is unfounded because the challenged Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 pertains to regional tender procedures and not to the employment relationship, thus falling under the matter of competition protection under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, which was not invoked in the appeal or in the preparatory acts (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 4 of 2022).

5.3.2.– The same observation, the irrelevance of the tender phase to the matter of civil law, would in any case lead to a lack of foundation, especially since the regional provision did not introduce any essential service level.

5.3.3.– From another aspect, the Region observes that, since the appellant did not challenge paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the same regional law, the regional competence to adopt a law authorizing its administration, and instrumental bodies, to select collective agreements, pursuant to Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code, remains unchallenged.

5.3.4.– Finally, according to the regional defense, the reference to essential levels of provision, concerning civil and social rights, as defined by Article 1, paragraph 791, of Law no. 197 of December 29, 2022 (State Budget Forecast for the financial year 2023 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2023-2025), which would have incorporated the judgment of this Court no. 220 of 2021, and the related identification procedure, as defined in the judgment of this Court no. 192 of 2024, is not relevant, as it is not clear how the minimum wage threshold to be considered in the tender procedures is attributable to an essential level of provision (LEP).

6.– With a subsequent appeal notified on January 29, 2025, and filed the same day, registered under appeal no. 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, challenged, among other things, questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, published in the Official Gazette of the Puglia Region, November 30, 2024, no. 11 extraordinary, for violation of Articles 36, first paragraph, 39, fourth paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letters l) and m), of the Constitution.

6.1.– Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024 amends Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, already the subject of the appeal registered under no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, replacing the words "a minimum economic treatment” with the words "a minimum table wage.”

7.– With a document filed on March 5, 2025, the Puglia Region appeared in the proceedings, in the person of the President of the Regional Government, asserting the inadmissibility and, in any case, the partial lack of foundation of the appeal.

7.1.– The Region objects to the inadmissibility of the appeal, as far as it concerns Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, because the provision and the constitutional parameters are indicated only in the report of the Department for Regional Affairs and not in the resolution of the Council of Ministers authorizing the challenge.

7.2.– As for the other aspects, the Region also literally reproduces all the exceptions of inadmissibility and lack of foundation already raised in its appearance in the parallel proceedings.

8.– In the proceedings concerning appeal no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, the State Attorney General’s Office filed a brief on October 10, 2025.

8.1.– The exception of inadmissibility of the appeal raised by the regional defense is unfounded because the resolution of the Council of Ministers is clear in referring the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 "in the text published in Official Gazette of the Puglia Region no. 95 of November 25, 2024,” so that the references contained in the appeal to the amended provision have a reconstructive function, without altering the scope of the challenge. Only if the original regulation had not been challenged would the inadmissibility of the subsequent appeal perhaps have been alleged, according to the Attorney General’s Office, as the subsequent provision lacks autonomous normative scope and is identical in rationale to the preceding one. The challenge to the original provision, however, attests to the specific and autonomous interest in the appeal, since "having remained in force in its original wording for a period of seven days, it has produced effects in the legal system, potentially still ongoing.”

8.2.– The exception of inadmissibility of the claims concerning the violation of Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, on the premise that Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 challenged is limited to the public contract sector, is also unfounded.

8.2.1.– Furthermore, according to the Attorney General’s Office, Directive (EU) 2022/2041, in compliance with Article 153, paragraph 5, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, does not oblige Member States to introduce a legal minimum wage; the Italian system based on collective bargaining and Article 36 of the Constitution (proportionate and sufficient remuneration) is compatible with the directive, whereas a regional law introducing a minimum wage would conflict with constitutional parameters and, in method, with Union law.

8.2.2.– From another aspect, the establishment of a minimum numerical parameter (and not one of adequacy) makes it clear that the challenged provision is not limited to encouraging the adoption of conditions no less favorable than those provided for by collective agreements through access to the benefit of public contracts, but imposes a minimum economic treatment in an entire relevant sector of regional contracting.

8.2.3.– Furthermore, the reference to the explanatory report to the Public Contracts Code is not decisive. Article 11 of the same code provides a model of referral to qualified collective bargaining left to the individual contracting authority, with powers of verification of equivalence and possibility of review of the suitability of the CCNL, without introducing any numerical basis; the challenged provision, instead, causes the source of the legally binding obligation and its amount to shift "from bargaining (with attached adequacy control) to the regional legislative precept,” intervening penetratively in the regulation of employment by private economic operators, especially in the regional health sector.

8.3.– Regarding the second ground of appeal, concerning jurisdictional profiles, the exception of inadmissibility due to erroneous identification of the parameter is unfounded because the challenged Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 pertains to regional tender procedures and not to the employment relationship, thus falling under the matter of competition protection under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, which was not invoked in the appeal or in the preparatory acts (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 4 of 2022).

8.3.2.– The same observation, the irrelevance of the tender phase to the matter of civil law, would in any case lead to a lack of foundation, especially since the regional provision did not introduce any essential service level.

8.3.3.– From another aspect, the Region observes that, since the appellant did not challenge paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the same regional law, the regional competence to adopt a law authorizing its administration, and instrumental bodies, to select collective agreements, pursuant to Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code, remains unchallenged.

8.3.4.– Finally, according to the regional defense, the reference to essential levels of provision, concerning civil and social rights, as defined by Article 1, paragraph 791, of Law no. 197 of December 29, 2022 (State Budget Forecast for the financial year 2023 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2023-2025), which would have incorporated the judgment of this Court no. 220 of 2021, and the related identification procedure, as defined in the judgment of this Court no. 192 of 2024, is not relevant, as it is not clear how the minimum wage threshold to be considered in the tender procedures is attributable to an essential level of provision (LEP).

9.– With a subsequent appeal notified on January 29, 2025, and filed the same day, registered under appeal no. 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, challenged, among other things, questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, published in the Official Gazette of the Puglia Region, November 30, 2024, no. 11 extraordinary, for violation of Articles 36, first paragraph, 39, fourth paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letters l) and m), of the Constitution.

9.1.– Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024 amends Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, already the subject of the appeal registered under no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, replacing the words "a minimum economic treatment” with the words "a minimum table wage.”

9.2.– With a document filed on March 5, 2025, the Puglia Region appeared in the proceedings, in the person of the President of the Regional Government, asserting the inadmissibility and, in any case, the partial lack of foundation of the appeal.

9.2.1.– The Region objects to the inadmissibility of the appeal, as far as it concerns Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, because the provision and the constitutional parameters are indicated only in the report of the Department for Regional Affairs and not in the resolution of the Council of Ministers authorizing the challenge.

9.2.2.– As for the other aspects, the Region also literally reproduces all the exceptions of inadmissibility and lack of foundation already raised in its appearance in the parallel proceedings.

9.3.– In the proceedings concerning appeal no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, the State Attorney General’s Office filed a brief on October 10, 2025.

9.3.1.– The exception of inadmissibility of the appeal raised by the regional defense is unfounded because the resolution of the Council of Ministers is clear in referring the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 "in the text published in Official Gazette of the Puglia Region no. 95 of November 25, 2024,” so that the references contained in the appeal to the amended provision have a reconstructive function, without altering the scope of the challenge. Only if the original regulation had not been challenged would the inadmissibility of the subsequent appeal perhaps have been alleged, according to the Attorney General’s Office, as the subsequent provision lacks autonomous normative scope and is identical in rationale to the preceding one. The challenge to the original provision, however, attests to the specific and autonomous interest in the appeal, since "having remained in force in its original wording for a period of seven days, it has produced effects in the legal system, potentially still ongoing.”

9.3.2.– The exception of inadmissibility of the claims concerning the violation of Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, on the premise that Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 challenged is limited to the public contract sector, is also unfounded.

9.3.2.1.– Furthermore, according to the Attorney General’s Office, Directive (EU) 2022/2041, in compliance with Article 153, paragraph 5, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, does not oblige Member States to introduce a legal minimum wage; the Italian system based on collective bargaining and Article 36 of the Constitution (proportionate and sufficient remuneration) is compatible with the directive, whereas a regional law introducing a minimum wage would conflict with constitutional parameters and, in method, with Union law.

9.3.2.2.– From another aspect, the establishment of a minimum numerical parameter (and not one of adequacy) makes it clear that the challenged provision is not limited to encouraging the adoption of conditions no less favorable than those provided for by collective agreements through access to the benefit of public contracts, but imposes a minimum economic treatment in an entire relevant sector of regional contracting.

9.3.2.3.– Furthermore, the reference to the explanatory report to the Public Contracts Code is not decisive. Article 11 of the same code provides a model of referral to qualified collective bargaining left to the individual contracting authority, with powers of verification of equivalence and possibility of review of the suitability of the CCNL, without introducing any numerical basis; the challenged provision, instead, causes the source of the legally binding obligation and its amount to shift "from bargaining (with attached adequacy control) to the regional legislative precept,” intervening penetratively in the regulation of employment by private economic operators, especially in the regional health sector.

9.3.3.– Regarding the second ground of appeal, concerning jurisdictional profiles, the exception of inadmissibility due to erroneous identification of the parameter is unfounded because the challenged Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 pertains to regional tender procedures and not to the employment relationship, thus falling under the matter of competition protection under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, which was not invoked in the appeal or in the preparatory acts (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 4 of 2022).

9.3.3.2.– The same observation, the irrelevance of the tender phase to the matter of civil law, would in any case lead to a lack of foundation, especially since the regional provision did not introduce any essential service level.

9.3.3.3.– From another aspect, the Region observes that, since the appellant did not challenge paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the same regional law, the regional competence to adopt a law authorizing its administration, and instrumental bodies, to select collective agreements, pursuant to Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code, remains unchallenged.

9.3.3.4.– Finally, according to the regional defense, the reference to essential levels of provision, concerning civil and social rights, as defined by Article 1, paragraph 791, of Law no. 197 of December 29, 2022 (State Budget Forecast for the financial year 2023 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2023-2025), which would have incorporated the judgment of this Court no. 220 of 2021, and the related identification procedure, as defined in the judgment of this Court no. 192 of 2024, is not relevant, as it is not clear how the minimum wage threshold to be considered in the tender procedures is attributable to an essential level of provision (LEP).

10.– In data 14 October 2025, in the proceedings registered under appeal no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, the Puglia Region filed a brief.

Reiterating the arguments already presented in support of the inadmissibility and lack of foundation of the questions, the Region notes the entry into force of Law no. 144 of September 26, 2025 (Delegations to the Government on workers' remuneration and collective bargaining as well as control and information procedures) to reiterate that the regional legislator did not introduce a minimum wage threshold applicable to all employment contracts, not having the competence to do so, but provided for a table minimum for regional public tender procedures only.

11.– On October 15, 2025, the Puglia Region also filed a brief in the proceedings registered under no. 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, insisting on the acceptance of the procedural and substantive exceptions already raised and acknowledging, in this proceeding as well, the non-interference of the challenged regional provision with the subsequent Law no. 144 of 2025.

Considered in Law

1.– The President of the Council of Ministers challenges, with the appeal registered under no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, with reference to Articles 36, first paragraph, 39, fourth paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letters l) and m), of the Constitution.

The provision establishes that the Region and the instrumental bodies indicated in paragraph 1 of Article 2, which is not challenged, "shall verify that the contracts indicated in the tender procedures provide for a non-derogable minimum economic treatment equal to nine euros per hour.”

The provision violates Article 36, first paragraph, of the Constitution, as the legal system does not provide for a minimum wage established by law or by other binding legal provisions; it also violates Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, as it conflicts with the constitutional parameters established to safeguard the autonomy of collective bargaining; Article 117, second paragraph, letters l), in that the regulation of remuneration in both public and private employment relationships is ascribable to the matter of civil law, and m), which attributes to the exclusive legislative competence of the State the determination of essential levels of provision concerning civil and social rights, due to the needs for uniformity and equality that strongly permeate the regulation of the employment contract.

2.– With a separate appeal, registered under no. 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, the President of the Council of Ministers challenges, among other things, Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, which amended Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, establishing that "the words ‘a minimum economic treatment’ shall be replaced by the following: ‘a minimum table wage.’”

3.– Given the substantial identity of the issues, the appeals deserve to be joined and decided with a single judgment.

The remaining questions of constitutional legitimacy raised with the appeal registered under no. 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry are reserved for a separate decision.

4.– Preliminarily, the exception of inadmissibility of the appeal registered under no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, raised by the regional defense due to a lack of correspondence between the challenged provision and the one subject to governmental authorization, must be examined.

4.1.– The exception is unfounded.

According to the established case law of this Court, in proceedings initiated by direct action, there must be a "full and necessary correspondence between the resolution by which the authorized body decides to challenge and the content of the appeal, given the political nature of the act of challenge” (among many, judgments no. 161 of 2025 and no. 142 of 2024).

The resolution of the Council of Ministers underpinning the appeal registered under no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry, adopted in the session of January 23, 2025, indicates as the subject of the challenge Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, whose title "Protection of the minimum wage in the contracts of the Puglia Region” and publication in the Official Gazette of the Puglia Region no. 95 of 2024 are indicated. The conclusions of the appeal request that the constitutional illegitimacy be declared with respect to Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, also in this case with reference to the title of the law and its publication in the Official Gazette, so that in this respect the governmental resolution and the appeal coincide.

4.2.– The regional defense further notes that in the reasoning section, the appeal, taking up the ministerial report attached to the governmental resolution, immediately acknowledges the subsequent amendment of Article 2, paragraph 2, and also indiscriminately adopts the expressions "minimum economic treatment” and "minimum table wage” relating to the original version and the amended version of the provision, resulting in the inadmissibility of the appeal for this specific reason.

4.2.1.– This point is also unfounded.

The decisive point is that, with a resolution adopted in the same session of January 23, 2025, the Council of Ministers authorized the challenge with a distinct and autonomous act of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, indicated by the title "Financial and other provisions. Amendment to the Budget Forecast for the financial year 2024 and the multi-year period 2024-2026” and publication in the Official Gazette of the Puglia Region of November 30, 2024, no. 11. This law, and in part its Article 21, which amended Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, is the subject of the appeal registered under no. 7 of the same Registry.

The two governmental authorization resolutions, adopted on the same date and referring distinctly to the two regional laws, make clear the Government's intention to challenge both the original text of Article 2, paragraph 2, containing the expression "minimum economic treatment”—the subject of the appeal registered under no. 5 of the 2025 Appeals Registry—and the text resulting from the amendment introduced by Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, relating to the "minimum table wage”—the subject of the appeal registered under no. 7 of the same Registry.

The assertion of the State Attorney General’s Office, made in the defense brief, that in the appeal against the original wording of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, the reference to the subsequent regulation has a merely reconstructive function and does not alter the scope of the challenge concerning the original provision, is therefore shared.

5.– The Puglia Region also objected to the inadmissibility of the appeal registered under no. 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry because the challenged provision and the constitutional parameters are not indicated in the resolution of the Council of Ministers, but only in the attached report of the Department for Regional Affairs.

5.1.– The exception is unfounded.

The resolution of the Council of Ministers indicates that Regional Law no. 39 of 2024 is challenged "according to the terms and reasons set forth in the attached report.” The attached report precisely identifies the challenged provisions—Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024 and, therefore, the as-amended text of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024—and the related parameters. Therefore, the defect alleged by the regional defense does not exist.

6.– The questions raised against Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, both in its original and amended versions, can therefore be examined concurrently.

6.1.– It is appropriate to begin with a regulatory framing of the challenged provision.

Article 2 is contained in a law composed of only two articles, the title of which is "Protection of the minimum wage in the contracts of the Puglia Region.” Article 2 is titled "Tender Procedures.” Paragraph 1, which is not challenged, provides that: "The Puglia Region, local health authorities, hospitals, Sanitaservice companies, regional agencies, and all regional instrumental bodies shall indicate in all tender procedures, in line with Article 11 of Legislative Decree no. 36 of March 31, 2023 (Public Contracts Code in implementation of Article 1 of Law no. 78 of June 21, 2022, concerning the delegation to the Government in matters of public contracts), that personnel employed in the works, services, and supplies subject to public contracts and concessions shall be applied the most relevant national and territorial collective agreement in force for the sector and for the area in which the work performance is carried out, entered into by the most representative employer and trade union organizations on a national level and strictly connected with the activity that is the subject of the contract or concession, without prejudice to more favorable treatment.”

Paragraph 2, the sole challenged provision, establishes in its original version: "The entities referred to in paragraph 1 shall verify that the contracts indicated in the tender procedures provide for a non-derogable minimum economic treatment equal to nine euros per hour.” Following the amendment introduced by Article 21 of Regional Law no. 39 of 2024, the words "a minimum economic treatment” were replaced by the words "a minimum table wage.”

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2, also not challenged, regulate the faculty of economic operators to apply a different collective agreement, to be declared in the offer, the obligation of the contracting authorities, pursuant to Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code, to verify that this agreement guarantees employees the same protections and the criteria for the judgment of equivalence.

6.2.– Regarding the objective scope of application, it appears from the title and the textual content of the entire article that the challenged paragraph 2 is intended to apply in public tender procedures announced by the regional administration and instrumental bodies. The provision, in particular, by imposing an obligation on the contracting authorities to verify a minimum wage threshold, sets a selection criterion for the collective agreement that the contracting authorities are called upon to indicate in the tender documents, without prejudice to the economic operator's right to indicate a different collective agreement that guarantees equivalent protections.

Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, therefore, in both controversial versions, does not introduce a generalized obligation for a minimum wage that directly imposes itself on all private subordinate employment contracts established in the regional territory, but has a scope limited to public contracts and concessions awarded by the Region and its instrumental bodies.

6.3.– Regarding the purposes of the regulation, it appears from the preparatory work that the Puglia Region, with a series of legislative interventions, intended to establish norms aimed at ensuring decent working conditions and guaranteeing workers' rights.

Regional Law no. 30 of 2024, in particular, seeks to combat contractual dumping, fueled by the coexistence of multiple collective agreements in the same sector, often signed by subjects with little or no representativeness, which ends up favoring so-called "working poverty,” allowing competitive comparison based on the lowest wages, to the detriment of labor protections and the quality of the offer (on the topic, see judgment no. 156 of 2025, as well as Cass., Labor Section, no. 28323, no. 28321, no. 28320, no. 27769, no. 27713 and no. 27711 of 2023).

6.3.1.– Directive (EU) 2022/2041 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union itself (the transposition of which was initiated by Law no. 15 of February 21, 2024, concerning "Delegation to the Government for the transposition of European directives and the implementation of other European Union acts - European Delegation Law 2022-2023”) recognizes that in recent decades traditional collective bargaining structures have weakened due, among other things, to structural shifts in the economy towards less unionized sectors and a decline in trade union membership, also as a consequence of anti-union activities and the increase in precarious and atypical forms of work (recital 16). By explicitly saving the choice of Member States, in accordance with their traditions, to provide for minimum wages by law, by collective bargaining, or by both (Article 1, paragraphs 3 and 4; recital 12 and 19), the directive establishes a framework for actions aimed at ensuring the adequacy of statutory minimum wages, where provided for, the promotion of collective bargaining on wage determination, and the improvement of workers' effective access to the protection guaranteed by the minimum wage where provided for by national law and/or collective agreements (Article 1, paragraph 1).

Recently, the judgment of the Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, of November 11, 2025, Case C-19/23, Kingdom of Denmark v European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, was issued, which rejected the application for the full annulment of the aforementioned directive, while annulling individual normative fractions contained in Article 5, relating to procedures for determining adequate statutory minimum wages, as they were deemed a direct interference in the determination of remuneration, in violation of the Union's exclusive competence under Article 153, paragraph 5, TFEU.

6.4.– The law of the Puglia Region no. 30 of 2024 is inserted into this regulatory framework.

In light of the textual content and its purposes, it is ascribable to the so-called "strategic” use of public contracts, i.e., the provision, in public tender procedures, of conditions aimed at achieving social objectives, including worker protection, which are additional to the proper objectives of the contracts themselves (judgment no. 4 of 2022).

6.5.– Sectoral directives of the European Union, in the various phases of their evolution, have provided for the possibility for contracting authorities to consider social and environmental factors in public tender procedures through the insertion of "social clauses” in tender documents.

Directive (EU) 2022/2041, mentioned above, also recognizes the fundamental role of public contracts for the effective implementation of minimum wage protection, whether provided by law or by collective bargaining (recital 31 and Article 9, titled "Public Contracts”).

6.6.– The State legislator has long since transposed and adopted the "strategic” use of public contracts of European matrix through institutions aimed at balancing the freedom of economic initiative of private operators, with a view to favoring competition for the market (Judgment no. 4 of 2022), and the pursuit of social policy objectives, worker protection, income support, and businesses (most recently, judgment no. 80 of 2025).

Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code is an expression of this orientation, which, in implementation of Article 1, paragraph 2, letter h), of Law no. 78 of June 21, 2022 (Delegation to the Government in matters of public contracts), introduced, among the general principles of the code, the obligation for contracting authorities to indicate in notices or invitations the national and territorial collective agreement in force for the sector and for the area in which the work performance is carried out, entered into by the most representative associations on a national level and strictly connected with the activity that is the subject of the contract or concession.

6.7.– After the entry into force of the challenged regional provisions, Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code was amended by Article 2 of Legislative Decree no. 209 of 2024, whose Article 73 concurrently introduced a specific Annex I.01 to the code, expressly referred to in Article 11 and containing criteria for the choice of the applicable CCNL and for the judgment of equivalence that contracting authorities are called upon to carry out.

Furthermore, the State legislator intervened with Law no. 144 of 2025 with the aim of implementing the right to a proportionate and sufficient remuneration pursuant to Article 36 of the Constitution (Article 1), laying down guiding principles and criteria relating also to minimum overall economic treatments in service contracts (Article 1, paragraph 2, letter b).

6.8.– The conformity of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 with Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code is not the subject of a challenge and remains external to these proceedings. The references made to Article 11 of the same code in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the regional provision, however, are relevant for the correct framing of the normative case, which is undoubtedly limited to the scope of public contracts and concessions. Therefore, the set of constitutional and European interests underlying the public contract system are at stake, including, in relation to the regulation in question, the freedom of economic operators to decide whether to participate in the public tender procedure and, for those who have decided to submit an offer, the possibility of opting for a different collective agreement, even if conditioned by the judgment of equivalence.

7.– Having reconstructed the scope of application of the challenged provision, the individual questions can be examined.

7.1.– With the first ground of appeal, Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 is challenged for violation of Article 36, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

The Region objected to the inadmissibility of the question due to a lack of reasoning and irrelevance of the parameter, as the provision does not establish a general principle, but only a requirement relating to regional tender procedures.

7.2.– The exception is well-founded on both grounds.

It is a constant principle of the case law of this Court that "the requirement of adequate reasoning underlying the challenge is strictly required in proceedings initiated by direct action, in which the appellant has the burden not only to identify the challenged provisions and the constitutional parameters whose violation is alleged, but also to support the reasons for the alleged conflict with clear, complete, and sufficiently articulated arguments” (judgments no. 136, no. 126, no. 106 and no. 28 of 2025).

The appellant merely states that the legal system does not provide for a minimum wage established by law or by other binding legal provisions. This is an assertive statement, as the appellant does not clarify why the provision of a minimum wage threshold should conflict with the principles of sufficiency and proportionality of remuneration guaranteed by Article 36, first paragraph, of the Constitution, nor does it address the impact of this threshold as a selection criterion for the collective agreement applicable to the contract or concession, thus in relation to the specific structure of interests characterizing the scope of public tender procedures.

The question concerning the violation of Article 36, first paragraph, of the Constitution, is therefore inadmissible.

8.– Still with the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges a conflict with Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, for violation of the constitutional principles safeguarding the autonomy of collective bargaining.

The regional defense also objects to the inadmissibility of this question, as the claim is "obscure” and generic in its reasoning.

8.1.– The exception is well-founded for reasons analogous to those already mentioned.

The appeal adopts the erroneous perspective of the imperative and binding impact of the regional provision on the generality of private subordinate employment relationships or in any case on the entire labor market segment covered by regional public contracting, but does not address the profiles of compatibility or otherwise with the evoked parameters of setting a minimum wage threshold as a criterion for selecting the CCNL applicable in the tender, omitting any consideration of both the obligations of the contracting authorities and the faculties of the economic operators.

The question concerning the violation of Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, is therefore inadmissible.

9.– With the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges the violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution.

According to the appellant, any norm regulating the contract, understood as the regulating source of the subordinate employment relationship, falls under the matter of civil law, reserved for the exclusive legislative power of the State, so that the provision of a reference wage threshold would constitute an intervention in the regulation of private subordinate employment withdrawn from the regional legislator (reference is made to the judgment of this Court no. 50 of 2005).

The Region objects to the inadmissibility of the question due to erroneous identification of the constitutional parameter, which should have been Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, which reserves to the exclusive competence of the State the matter of competition protection, again on the grounds that the challenged provision limits its impact solely to the scope of regional public contracts.

9.1.– The exception deserves to be upheld.

The case law of this Court is firm in holding that the provisions of the Public Contracts Code concerning the choice of the contractor (the award procedures) are attributable to competition protection (among many, judgments no. 80 of 2025 and no. 174 of 2024).

It is also established that the regulation of public contracts also includes essential aspects of contract law relating to the conclusion and execution phases of the contract (judgments no. 79 of 2023 and no. 23 of 2022). According to the constant case law of this Court, the attraction of a provision into the sphere of private law depends on the object and content of the norm, its rationale, and the purpose it pursues, whereas the involvement of institutions regulated by the Civil Code is not in itself decisive. Precisely with reference to the public works contract, aspects of specialty compared to the provisions of the Civil Code have been found, relating to the conclusion and execution phases of the contract, which do not, however, constitute an obstacle to recognizing the exclusive legislative competence of the State in matters of civil law under Article 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution (judgment no. 132 of 2023).

On several occasions, moreover, this Court has dealt with private law institutions related to the execution of the contract that become relevant from the tender phase, as they contribute to defining the conditions of equal access for economic operators (judgment no. 79 of 2023) and are inspired by a principle of continuity that must exist throughout the entire procedural phase, from the preparation of contractor selection mechanisms, to the award of the contract and its execution, to ensure that companies, in the execution phase, maintain the requirements already emerged under equal conditions in the tender phase, often precisely with reference to obligations connected to worker protection (judgment no. 44 of 2023).

9.2.– In the present case, however, as already highlighted, the appellant alleges a violation of the exclusive legislative competence of the State in matters of civil law without considering that the challenged regional regulation pertains to the sphere of public contracts. The error in perspective in which the appellant errs in reconstructing the normative case, as if it were an imperative regulation of general scope applicable to all private subordinate employment contracts, is reflected in the fact that no ground of complaint is raised with reference to the structure of goods and interests, connected to competition protection and civil law, which take shape in the specific sector of public contracts. From this point of view, the assertion of a generalized interference with contractual activity, which does not account for the peculiar conditions in which this interference operates in public tender procedures, is not sufficient.

The question concerning the violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution is therefore inadmissible.

9.3.– Regarding the competitive implications of the regulation, the mention, barely hinted at by the appellant, that the regional intervention would be "limiting free competition among economic operators” cannot have any relevance. This mention is formulated in both appeals within the first ground of appeal, relating to the substantive constitutional parameters, Articles 36, first paragraph, and 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, and not to the second ground, relating to jurisdictional profiles; it is devoid of the relevant parameter and completely lacking in reasoning, thus being unsuitable to found an autonomous question of constitutional legitimacy.

Any assessment of the merits concerning the jurisdictional profiles relating to competition protection and civil law not raised in these appeals remains without prejudice.

10.– The question concerning the conflict of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Regional Law no. 30 of 2024 with Article 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, raised with the second ground of appeal, is also inadmissible.

The appellant merely asserts that the regulation of the employment contract is strongly permeated by needs for uniformity and equality that justify the exclusive legislative power of the State also under Article 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, but in no way clarifies why and how the alleged violation occurs, incurring an absolute lack of reasoning.

The question concerning the violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, is therefore inadmissible.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

reserves the decision on the further question of constitutional legitimacy raised with appeal no. 7 of the 2025 Appeals Registry for a separate ruling;

having joined the proceedings,

1) declares inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Law of the Puglia Region of November 21, 2024, no. 30 (Protection of the minimum wage in the contracts of the Puglia Region), raised, in reference to Articles 36, first paragraph, 39, fourth paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letters l) and m), of the Constitution, by the President of the Council of Ministers with the appeal indicated in the heading;

2) declares inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 21 of the Law of the Puglia Region of November 29, 2024, no. 39 (Financial and other provisions. Amendment to the Budget Forecast for the financial year 2024 and the multi-year period 2024-2026), raised, in reference to Articles 36, first paragraph, 39, fourth paragraph, and 117, second paragraph, letters l) and m), of the Constitution, by the President of the Council of Ministers with the appeal indicated in the heading.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on November 5, 2025.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Stefano PETITTI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed in the Registry on December 16, 2025