JUDGMENT NO. 200

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, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has delivered the following

JUDGMENT

in the constitutional legitimacy review proceedings concerning Article 1, paragraph 1, of Law of 28 February 2025, no. 20 (Conversion into law, with amendments, of Decree-Law of 31 December 2024, no. 208, containing urgent organizational measures to address situations of particular emergency, as well as for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan), in the part where it introduces, into the text of Decree-Law of 31 December 2024, no. 208 (Urgent organizational measures to address situations of particular emergency, as well as for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan), Article 9-bis, paragraph 2, promoted by the Tuscany Region, with a recourse notified on 16 April 2025, filed in the Registry on the following 17 April, registered under no. 18 of the Recourse Registry 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 20, special series, of 2025.

Having seen the appearance of the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard in the public hearing of 18 November 2025 the Reporting Judge Massimo Luciani;

having heard the lawyer Marcello Cecchetti for the Tuscany Region, as well as the State lawyers Laura Paolucci and Emanuele Feola for the President of the Council of Ministers;

deliberated in the Chamber of Council on 18 November 2025.

Facts Considered

1.– With a recourse notified on 16 April 2025, filed on the following 17 April and registered under no. 18 of the Recourse Registry 2025, the Tuscany Region raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 1, paragraph 1, of Law of 28 February 2025, no. 20 (Conversion into law, with amendments, of Decree-Law of 31 December 2024, no. 208, containing urgent organizational measures to address situations of particular emergency, as well as for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan), in the part where it introduces, into the text of Decree-Law of 31 December 2024, no. 208 (Urgent organizational measures to address situations of particular emergency, as well as for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan), Article 9-bis, paragraph 2, with reference to Articles 5, 117, third paragraph, and 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution.

1.1.− The aforementioned Article 9-bis, paragraph 2, provides that "[a]rticle 19, paragraph 5-quater, of Decree-Law of 6 July 2011, no. 98, converted, with amendments, by Law of 15 July 2011, no. 111, is amended as follows: a) in the third period, the words: "by 30 November” are replaced by the following: "by 31 October”; b) in the fourth period, the words: "With a reasoned resolution of the region” are replaced by the following: "With a decree of the Minister of Education and Merit”.”

1.2.− The appellant considers that this legislative provision infringes upon regional powers in the matter of education, particularly concerning school network planning, insofar as: i) the anticipation of the deadline for concluding the procedure for approving the school network planning schemes prejudices the proper exercise of planning; ii) the provision for a ministerial decree to extend the deadline for approving the plans removes competence from the Region.

More specifically, the appellant asserts that the challenged provisions are detailed and self-executing norms, directly shaping the modalities of exercising the function of planning the school network, thus compromising the legislative and administrative competences of the Regions in educational matters, under Article 117, third paragraph, and Article 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution.

1.3.− The appellant Region affirms that the legislation under paragraphs 5-quater, 5-quinquies, and 5-sexies of the aforementioned Article 19, introduced by Article 1, paragraph 557, of Law of 29 December 2022, no. 197 (State Budget Forecast for the fiscal year 2023 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2023-2025) had established a new procedure whereby, starting from 2023 (thus from the proceeding concerning the school year 2024/2025), by 15 April the Ministry of Education and Merit was required to transmit to the Unified Conference the draft decree determining, on a three-year basis (with possible annual adjustments), the criteria for defining the contingent of school principals (DS) and administrative services directors (DSGA) and its distribution among the Regions. These criteria were to take into account the student population size of each Region and the necessity to safeguard the specific features of institutions located in mountain municipalities, small islands, and geographical areas characterized by linguistic peculiarities. The draft decree was to be forwarded to the Unified Conference for agreement and for the subsequent adoption of the decree, by the Minister of Education and Merit in agreement with the Minister of Economy and Finance, by 31 May of the calendar year preceding the reference school year. If the 31 May deadline was not met, the contingent of DS and DSGA personnel and its distribution among the Regions would be defined by a decree of the Minister of Education and Merit, in agreement with the Minister of Economy and Finance, to be adopted by 30 June, based on criteria specifically established in paragraph 5-quinquies of Article 19 of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011, as converted.

The Tuscany Region specifies that Law no. 197 of 2022 had then stipulated that, following this interministerial decree, the Regions were required to proceed with the school network planning by 30 November of each year, and that this deadline could be extended by up to thirty days, through a reasoned regional resolution.

1.4.− The recourse highlights that some Regions, including Tuscany itself, had challenged before this Court the aforesaid legislation insofar as it introduced a new procedure for identifying the contingent of DS and DSGA, which necessarily corresponded to an equal number of autonomous school institutions. During the review of the related recours, this Court deemed that the challenged provisions were based on several titles of exclusive State legislative competence (letters g and n of Article 117, second paragraph, of the Constitution), but also that "it cannot be denied that paragraphs 5-quater, 5-quinquies, and 5-sexies of Article 19 of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011, as converted, inserted by the challenged paragraph 557, interfere with the concurrent legislative competence of the Regions in educational matters, under the aspect of school network planning, constantly framed within this material sphere by the jurisprudence of this Court (Judgments No. 147 of 2012, No. 200 of 2009, No. 34 of 2005 and No. 13 of 2004)” (the appellant refers to Judgment No. 223 of 2023).

1.5.− The appellant Region highlights that: on 24 April 2023, the draft interministerial decree (provided for by Law no. 197 of 2022 itself) for defining the criteria for identifying the contingent of DS and DSGA personnel and its distribution among the Regions for the three-year period 2024/2027 was transmitted to the Regions for agreement in the Unified Conference; that the Unified Conference, in its session of 24 May 2023, did not express a favorable opinion; that, consequently, the foreseen agreement was not reached, the critical issues noted by the Regions regarding the criteria adopted in that decree for defining the contingent of DS and DSGA remaining unresolved. On 25 July 2023, with note no. 0003489, the Minister of Education and Merit therefore transmitted to the Regions the Decree of 30 June 2023, no. 127 (Definition of the contingent of DS and DSGA personnel – three-year period 2024/2027), in agreement with the Minister of Economy and Finance (as shown on the website of the Ministry of Education and Merit). Subsequently, with note 4 August 2023, no. 3723, the aforesaid decree was again sent to the Presidents of the Regions, specifying that it had been registered by the Court of Auditors on 2 August 2023 and was therefore effective from that date.

The recourse specifies that this decree assigned the Tuscany Region 455 school principals for the school year 2024/2025, 452 for the school year 2025/2026, and 446 for the school year 2026/2027, resulting in a corresponding reduction of 24 school institutions compared to those considered prior to the adoption of Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023.

The appellant asserts that she challenged Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023 before the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio and that the recourse was discussed and held for decision at the public hearing of 2 April 2025, but that at the time of filing the present recourse, the related ruling had not yet been issued.

1.6.− The recourse highlights that, subsequent to the aforementioned Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023, for the school year 2024/2025, the State legislator introduced Article 5 of Decree-Law of 30 December 2023, no. 215 (Urgent provisions concerning legislative deadlines), converted, with amendments, into Law of 23 February 2024, no. 18, which established that "[s]ubject to the contingent of school principals and administrative services directors and its distribution among the Regions defined, for the school years 2025/2026 and 2026/2027, by the Decree of the Minister of Education and Merit, in agreement with the Minister of Economy and Finance, no. 127 of 30 June 2023, the Regions, for the sole school year 2024/2025, may activate an additional number of autonomous school institutions not exceeding 2.5 percent of the contingent of the corresponding positions of school principal and administrative services director defined, for each Region, for the same school year 2024/2025, by the aforesaid Decree no. 127 of 2023, attributing only acting appointments and without a corresponding increase in hiring powers.”

The Tuscany Region asserts that it exercised the power thus provided by Resolution of the Regional Executive Board of 4 January 2024, no. 1 (Approval of the regional education plan and school network planning for the school year 2024/2025) and that, consequently, for the school year 2024/2025, it was able to provide for 466 autonomous school institutions, instead of the 455 that would have been provided for by applying Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023.

1.7.− The recourse specifies that the State then intervened for the school year 2025/2026 with Decree-Law of 16 January 2025, no. 1 (Urgent measures concerning reform R.1.3 "Reorganization of the school system" of Mission 4 - Component 1 of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan), by which it amended Article 1 of Law of 13 July 2015, no. 107 (Reform of the national education and training system and delegation for the reorganization of current legislative provisions), providing for the possibility for the Regions to: i) adopt the resolution for school network planning, within and no later than ten days from the date of entry into force of this Decree; ii) activate, for the sole school year 2025/2026, an additional number of autonomous school institutions not exceeding 2.99 percent of the contingent of DS and DSGA positions defined, for each Region and for the same school year 2025/2026, by Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023, again resorting to acting appointments and without a corresponding increase in hiring powers.

It is, moreover, appropriate to specify that this Decree-Law was not converted.

The Tuscany Region asserts that it decided to avail itself of the option for the 2.99 percent increase with respect to the staffing levels indicated in Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023, as provided for by Decree-Law no. 1 of 2025, thus keeping the number of 466 autonomous school institutions currently present in Tuscany unchanged for the school year 2025/2026 (Resolution of the Tuscany Regional Executive Board of 20 January 2025, no. 36, concerning "Approval of the regional education plan and school network planning for the school year 2025/2026, pursuant to Decree-Law of 16 January 2025, no. 1").

1.8.− Finally, the Tuscany Region highlights that, with Law no. 20 of 2025, Decree-Law no. 208 of 2024 was converted into law, with amendments, and that with this conversion law the aforementioned Decree-Law no. 1 of 2025 was formally repealed, with acts and provisions adopted remaining valid, and the effects produced and legal relationships established based on Decree-Law no. 1 of 2025 being saved. However, the discipline established by this Decree-Law was substantially reproduced by paragraph 1 of Article 9-bis of Decree-Law no. 208 of 2024, inserted by the conversion law. In particular, the paragraph 1 of this Article provides for the insertion, after paragraph 83-quater of Article 1 of Law no. 107 of 2015, of paragraphs 83-quinquies, 83-sexies, 83-septies, and 83-octies, containing a derogatory discipline for the school year 2025/2026, substantially analogous to that already introduced by the repealed Decree-Law no. 1 of 2025. With paragraph 2 of the same Article 9-bis, introduced during the conversion of Decree-Law no. 208 of 2024 by Law no. 20 of 2025, amendments were also made to Article 19, paragraph 5-quater, of Decree-Law of 6 July 2011, no. 98 (Urgent provisions for financial stabilization), namely by providing that "a) in the third period, the words: "by 30 November” are replaced by the following: "by 31 October”; b) in the fourth period, the words: "With a reasoned resolution of the region” are replaced by the following: "With a decree of the Minister of Education and Merit”.”

1.9.− Having established the foregoing, the Tuscany Region maintains that the previously existing discipline provided that the possibility of extending the deadline for approving the school network planning scheme was left to the assessments of the Region, the entity responsible for the complex procedure for drafting the plan. The appellant indicates, by way of example, that for the planning of the school network, as defined in Title V of the Regulation of 8 August 2023 [sic: 2003], no. 47/R, concerning the "Implementing Regulation of Regional Law 26.7.2002, no. 32 (Consolidated Text of the Legislation of the Tuscany Region on Education, Instruction, Guidance, Vocational Training, Labour)", the necessary participation and consultation of a range of subjects and bodies are envisaged, including autonomous school institutions, municipalities (through the Zonal Conferences), Provinces, and Metropolitan Cities.

1.10.− The recourse reiterates that, as a result of the amendments to the aforementioned paragraph 5-quater introduced by Law no. 20 of 2025, the deadline for adopting the planning scheme, already set for 30 November, has been anticipated to 31 October and, above all, the decision regarding any extension of this deadline by thirty days has been assigned to the Minister of Education and Merit, through a specific decree, and no longer to the individual Regions.

According to the Tuscany Region, this legislative change has therefore not only compressed the timeframe of a particularly complex procedure, involving both the regional entity and other subjects and bodies, but has also arbitrarily deprived the Region itself of the power to extend the deadline by thirty days with its own act.

1.11.− In the opinion of the appellant, the legislative amendment under Law no. 20 of 2025 affects an area, namely education, falling under concurrent legislative competence.

On this aspect, the Tuscany Region highlights that Articles 137 and 138, paragraph 1, letter b), of Legislative Decree of 31 March 1998, no. 112 (Delegation of State administrative functions and tasks to Regions and local bodies, in implementation of Chapter I of Law of 15 March 1997, no. 59), have, respectively, confirmed the attribution to the State of functions concerning the criteria and parameters for the organization of the school network, following the opinion of the Unified Conference, and delegated to the Regions the administrative functions relating to the planning of the said network, based on provincial plans. Furthermore, Presidential Decree of 18 June 1998, no. 233 (Regulation containing rules for the optimal planning of school institutions and for the determination of the functional staffing levels of individual institutes, pursuant to Article 21 of Law of 15 March 1997, no. 59) provided, in Article 2, that administrative, organizational, teaching, as well as research and educational planning autonomy is recognized to school institutions that reach dimensions suitable to ensure the optimal balance between the demand for education and the organization of the educational offer, providing, for this purpose, for the definition of provincial planning schemes.

The recourse specifies that, with the reform of Title V of the Constitution, the State was recognized as having exclusive competence regarding the determination of the essential levels of performance concerning civil and social rights that must be guaranteed throughout the national territory and regarding the general norms on education, pursuant to Article 117, letters m) and n), of the Constitution, while the Regions were attributed concurrent legislative power in educational matters.

The appellant refers, in this regard, to constitutional jurisprudence according to which, it asserts, school network planning and programming cannot be traced back to general norms on education but must instead be included in the concurrent legislative competence area of "education" (referencing Judgments No. 92 of 2011, No. 235 of 2010 and No. 200 of 2009).

The recourse dwells particularly on the cited Judgment No. 200 of 2009, which, among other things, allegedly affirmed that the planning of the network of school institutions is an area that must be considered to fall within the regional competence.

The principles of Judgment No. 200 of 2009 are stated to have been confirmed in the subsequent Judgment No. 147 of 2012, with reference to Article 19, paragraph 4, of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011, as converted, as well as in the most recent Judgment No. 223 of 2023, which, while denying the constitutional illegitimacy of, inter alia, paragraph 5-quater of Article 19 of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011, as converted, in the version preceding the amendment, nevertheless stressed the interference of the legislation under paragraphs 5-quater, 5-quinquies, and 5-sexies of Article 19 of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011 with the concurrent legislative competence of the Regions in educational matters, reiterating that the aspect of school network planning had been constantly framed by the jurisprudence of this Court within the material sphere of regional competence.

1.12.− The appellant further submits that, where the unilateral and authoritative intervention of the Minister of Education and Merit is provided for in the exercise of the power to extend the deadline, the principles of loyal collaboration and subsidiarity, pursuant to Articles 5, 117, third paragraph, and 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution, are also violated.

The recourse specifies that the concurrence of State legislative powers with regional ones operating in the matter of "education", particularly when the planning of the school network, to which the challenged norm relates, is involved, must find its resolution through loyal collaboration "which, due to its flexibility, allows account to be taken of the peculiarities of individual situations" and requires the State law to provide adequate instruments for the involvement of the Regions, safeguarding their competences (citing Judgments of this Court No. 44 of 2014, No. 234 of 2012, No. 187 of 2012; No. 88 of 2009, No. 50 of 2008, No. 213 of 2006, No. 133 of 2006, No. 231 of 2005, No. 219 of 2005 and No. 50 of 2005).

According to the Tuscany Region, this principle would be manifestly violated by the norm in question, which grants exclusively to the Minister of Education and Merit the decision regarding the extension of the deadline for concluding the procedure for approving the school network planning scheme, without any effective involvement of the Region itself.

In the opinion of the Tuscany Region, the challenged legislative provision would therefore also violate the principles concerning the principle of subsidiarity, as the prerequisites for its application are not met in this case. Therefore, the challenged provision would be constitutionally illegitimate also for violation of Article 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution, as the decision on the extension of the deadline is allocated to the Minister of Education and Merit, with a clear and direct impact on the procedure for planning the school network, in the absence of unitary requirements and a procedure based on loyal collaboration that guarantees the effective participation of the Region, which would not even be "heard," contrary to the legal status of the call for subsidiarity, as developed by constitutional jurisprudence (referencing Judgment No. 6 of 2023).

According to the Tuscany Region, the alleged constitutional illegitimacy would be confirmed by the fact that the norm in question: i) does not express unitary requirements under the values to be protected and does not concern general norms on education or general principles of the matter; ii) does not contain "the indications of the purposes" of the school; iii) does not establish "minimum conditions of uniformity in educational matters"; iv) does not express essential interventions aimed at guaranteeing substantial equality in access to and enjoyment of culture, which must be applied indiscriminately throughout the national territory.

In light of these reconstructive premises, the appellant considers that the challenged legislative provision violates the principle of loyal collaboration under Article 5 of the Constitution and, further, the administrative competences of the Region in educational matters, under Article 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution, with reference to Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution.

2.− The President of the Council of Ministers appeared in the proceedings with an act filed on 26 May 2025, represented and defended by the State Attorney's Office, requesting that the recourse be dismissed.

2.1.− In illustrating the groundlessness of the raised issues, the State defense first sets out some reconstructive premises of the regulatory framework, including the European one, and of the position taken in the recourse by the Tuscany Region.

2.2.− More specifically, the President of the Council of Ministers affirms that Law no. 19 [sic: 197] of 2022, with Article 1, paragraph 557, had inserted paragraphs 5-quater, 5-quinquies, and 5-sexies after paragraph 5-ter of Article 19 of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011, as converted, in order to implement the reorganization of the school system provided for in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR M4 C1 - Reform 1.3).

The State defense highlights that the provisions in question were introduced into the Italian legal system in implementation of the international commitments undertaken by Italy with other European States and with the European Institutions under Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021, establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), and that – therefore – there is a close and essential connection between the challenged legislation and the implementation of the PNRR.

It is further noted that the Council Implementing Decision approving the aforementioned PNRR expressly specified that the objective of "Reform M4C1R1.3" concerning the organization of the school system was twofold, namely: i) to reduce the number of pupils per class and gradually improve the ratio between the number of pupils and the number of teachers; ii) to reform the regulations concerning school network planning, providing as an "effective parameter" for the identification of school buildings to be merged with other institutes the regional student population rather than that of the individual institute, and that to this end the European Commission had included in the cited PNRR a specific milestone "M4C1-5" by 31 December 2022 for the definition of primary legislation, complete with its publication in the Official Gazette.

The State defense emphasizes that this milestone was reached and has already been reported to the Commission, passing the assessment favorably in the assessment period; in particular, it is stated to have been reached in relation to Reform "M4C1R1.3" precisely with the introduction of Article 1, paragraph 557, of Law no. 197 of 2022, which – starting from 1 January 2023 – reformed the discipline relating to the definition and distribution of the contingent of DS and DSGA personnel, in compliance with the specific European indications aimed at adapting the school network to demographic trends in the student population.

The statement of appearance specifies that, in the first application, Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023 was adopted, defining the contingent of DS and DSGA personnel and its distribution among the Regions for the three-year period 2024/25, 2025/26, and 2026/27. However, in the first two years of application of the new reference regulatory framework, both in the procedure relating to the school year 2024/2025 and in that relating to the school year 2025/2026, some regional entities, called upon to adopt the administrative acts within their competence, repeatedly exceeded the procedural deadlines without then proceeding with school network planning or doing so in a manner different from that provided for in primary legislation, forcing the national legislator to intervene urgently through extraordinary measures, in order to ensure the regular start of the school year.

By way of example, the State defense notes that the deadline for opening registrations through the single platform for the school year 2025/26 "for all initial classes of primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary schools," initially set for 8 January 2025, was postponed to the following 21 January precisely due to the failure of some Regions to adopt the relevant school network planning schemes.

It then asserts that, to ensure the orderly start of the school year, allowing families to submit registration applications, operations related to the definition of the school network must conclude no later than the preceding calendar year, so that pupils can be enrolled in the actually available school sites.

Moreover, the previous legislation allegedly left a very narrow window of time between the conclusion of the operations within the competence of the Regions and the start of the registration phase by families.

This led to the necessity, in the first two years of application of the relevant legislation, to introduce extraordinary measures by law, postponing the deadlines for concluding network planning operations (set by Decree-Law no. 215 of 2023, as converted, to 5 January 2024 and, by Decree-Law no. 1 of 2025, to 26 January 2025).

The statement of appearance specifies that the increased costs arising from the aforementioned legislative interventions had, albeit temporarily, limited the positive impact of the new regulatory framework on school network planning, which the State legislator intended to "indirectly realize a purpose [...] attributable to the dynamic coordination of public finance," as it was aimed at virtuously reorienting "public spending" (on this point, reference is made to Judgment of this Court No. 78 of 2020).

According to the State defense, the complex sequence of procedural phases preparatory to the start of the school year requires the punctual observance, by all Regions, of the deadlines established by law.

In this regard, it is sufficient to consider that personnel mobility procedures are national in nature and that, consequently, to define the transfers of teaching and administrative, technical, and auxiliary staff, the completion of all registration and class formation phases for every school institution across the national territory is necessary, so that the presence of even a single non-compliant Region, or one delayed beyond the legal deadlines, would vitiate the entire procedure, forcing the national legislator to intervene, derogatorily, with specific legislative updates.

It is further pointed out that the introduction, through the cited extraordinary provisions, of broader methods and deadlines for the definition, by the Regions, of their respective planning schemes, thus derogating from the objectives of reducing the number of autonomous school institutions imposed by the PNRR, was possible only because the final objectives of the reform were to be assessed by the European Commission at the end of the first three-year period of application of the measure. In other words: these interventions – it is asserted – were only possible in light of the State's commitment to the European Institutions to keep the achievement of the final objective of implementing the reorganization of the school system indicated by the aforesaid Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023 for the school year 2026/27 unimpaired.

It is further asserted that, precisely in consideration of this, taking into account the imminent and unavoidable deadline imposed by the PNRR, the legislative intervention under challenge became necessary, aimed at permanently ensuring the participation of the Regions in the administrative procedure and, at the same time, satisfying the essential need to allow the correct start of the school year. For this reason, Law no. 20 of 2025, which converted Decree-Law no. 208 of 2024 into law with amendments, introduced – through the cited Article 9-bis, paragraph 2, letters a) and b) – the following amendments: i) a new "ordinary" date by which Regions must conclude the planning of the school network, identified as 31 October of the preceding school year; ii) the possibility of a deferral of the aforementioned ordinary deadline of no more than thirty days by decree of the Minister of Education and Merit.

According to the State defense, therefore, the legislative choice aims to guarantee the full participation of the Regions in the administrative procedure in question, while avoiding that delays and/or omissions attributable to some of them may seriously and irreparably prejudice the entire school system and lead to a breach by Italy of the commitments undertaken at the European level.

According to the President of the Council of Ministers, in assessing the balance between the interests at stake, it must also be considered that, based on the legislation in question, the contingents of DS and DSGA, which constitute the parameter for school network planning by the Regions, are defined on a three-year basis and are therefore known to the regional bodies well in advance.

In the opinion of the State defense, therefore, the criticisms according to which the new legislative provisions would have an impact that "significantly affects the conduct of the Plan drafting process, establishing a strict timeline not adequate for the complex procedure for approving the Plan itself," also implying "the exclusion of the Region from any decision regarding the extension of the deadline," do not hit the mark.

The aforementioned statements are alleged to be factually incorrect, considering the procedural path outlined above, and legally incorrect, in light of what this Court noted in Judgment No. 223 of 2023, where – concerning the division of powers in the matter in question – it was definitively clarified that the provisions on school network planning are based "predominantly on different titles of exclusive State legislative competence. It must indeed be considered that these norms, both under the aspect of determining the contingent and under that of choosing the superseding, within the specified terms, of the legal instrument of acting appointments, concern personnel included in State public employment, because 'school principals are State, not regional, public employees – as results from both their recruitment and their overall legal status' (Judgment No. 147 of 2012 and already, in the same sense, Judgment No. 200 of 2009, regarding school personnel). They therefore fall fully within the matter of 'statutory and administrative organization of the State,' of exclusive State competence pursuant to letter g) of the second paragraph of Article 117 of the Constitution."

According to the State defense, "The provisions in question [are] classifiable, from a dual perspective, also as general norms on education, falling within the exclusive legislative power of the State under Article 117, second paragraph, letter n), of the Constitution. Firstly, because, as already affirmed by this Court for other categories of school personnel, the 'revision of criteria and parameters for the overall determination of staffing levels' (Judgment No. 200 of 2009, point 34 of the Consideration in Law), falls within the general norms on education. Secondly, because these norms aim to redefine a fundamental aspect of functional autonomy – the discipline of which this Court has already attributed to the 'general norms on education' (Judgment No. 200 of 2009, point 21 of the Consideration in Law) – that characterizes school institutions, by being aimed at establishing a necessary dichotomy between autonomy and the effective title holder of a principal, so that the former no longer exists without this figure."

Therefore, the choice to advance the deadline for adopting the regional plan by thirty days constitutes a modification of procedural terms that finds full justification in competence titles such as "statutory and administrative organization of the State" and "general norms on education." The need to ensure compliance with commitments undertaken at the European level and that of allowing the orderly start of the school year must also be considered.

These needs justify not only the aforementioned advancement of the procedural deadline but also the legislator's choice to assign to the Minister of Education and Merit the power to order a possible deferral thereof, as the possible delay by even a single Region would negatively affect the entire system at the national level, and, for this very reason, decisions regarding the possible deferral of the deadline must also be assessed at the central level, as they may prejudice a fundamental right of users such as the right to education.

The State defense, in order to demonstrate what has been asserted, refers to a table showing the main preparatory phases for the start of the new school year, set for September 2025.

In particular, the table would show that, in order to ensure the regular start of the school year, it is essential to fully define the three-year educational offer plan (which would represent the core of school autonomy) based on which families can fully exercise their freedom of educational choice, which in turn requires the exact and timely identification of the number, type, location, and aggregation modalities of school buildings.

It is also highlighted that school autonomy has found explicit recognition in the Constitution (Article 117, third paragraph), compliance with which requires that adequate spaces of autonomy be left to school institutions, which State and regional laws, in the exercise of concurrent legislative power, cannot prejudice (referencing Judgment of this Court No. 13 of 2004).

Therefore, the challenged provision is also aimed at protecting these areas of autonomy, guaranteeing school institutions the necessary time to make organizational and planning choices concerning educational activities. Since the challenged legislative amendments are also aimed at achieving this objective throughout the national territory, the adoption of these choices falls fully within the legislative powers of the State, as this Court would have highlighted in the already mentioned Judgment No. 223 of 2023.

3.− On 23 October 2025, the President of the Council of Ministers filed a hearing brief, reiterating what was already stated in the statement of appearance and emphasizing that, with reference to the school year 2026/2027, with resolution 29 September 2025, no. 1455 (Approval of regional guidelines for school network planning for the school year 2026/2027), the Executive Board of the Tuscany Region decided to suspend the regional procedure for defining the institutions, keeping the number of autonomous school institutions unchanged.

4.– On 27 October 2025, the Tuscany Region filed a hearing brief, contesting the arguments of the State defense and highlighting in particular that the deadlines for the procedure for approving the planning scheme were normally respected by the Regions, which allegedly never prejudiced the timing for registrations and the correct start of the school year.

The Tuscany Region asserts that the difficulty arising from Law no. 197 of 2022 was instead due to the reduction in the number of personnel assigned to the Regions, which were called upon to adopt school network planning counting on fewer staff and therefore having to merge institutions, which made the planning procedure even more complex (in which, moreover, the Regions are necessarily called to involve local bodies and the school institutions themselves).

More specifically, the Tuscany Region asserts that it always respected the deadlines set by State laws for the approval of the relevant school network planning schemes, as would be evident from those enacted over the years (resolutions of the Regional Executive Board approving the plans are attached), specifying that those relating to the school years 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 were approved in compliance with the deadlines and derogations granted, respectively, by Decree-Law no. 215 of 2023, as converted, and by Decree-Law no. 1 of 2025.

According to the Tuscany Region, therefore, the operational difficulties were not due to the deadlines of the procedure for approving the school network planning scheme.

The brief highlights that the derogations introduced by the aforementioned Decree-Laws allowed for the activation, for the school years 2024/2025 and 2025/2026, of a higher number of autonomous school institutions than the contingent of the corresponding DS and DSGA positions defined by Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023, and that this made it possible to overcome the critical issues encountered and highlighted by the Regions regarding the necessary mergers resulting from the reduced staffing levels. It is also specified that these derogations were necessary precisely to overcome certain critical issues encountered in defining the contingent of personnel to be assigned to each Region (an example of a critical issue that affected the Tuscany Region itself is reported, in relation to which, among the students considered by the Minister of Education and Merit in the adoption of Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023, the students of the eleven provincial centers for adult education were not counted).

The Tuscany Region adds that the operation aimed at defining the personnel contingent was not easy, in the first application, even for the State administration; in fact, for the definition of the staffing levels of school principals and administrative services directors under Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023, a student population figure was considered which turned out to be underestimated compared to its actual size. For this reason, it was necessary to intervene with the aforementioned derogatory Decree-Laws aimed at increasing by a percentage the number of activatable autonomous institutions (Decree-Law no. 215 of 2023, as converted, and Decree-Law no. 1 of 2025).

It is also pointed out that the State intervened, with Interministerial Decree of 30 June 2025, no. 124, by revising upwards the contingent of DS and DSGA personnel for the school year 2026/2027, recognizing, in its consideration, "a less significant impact of the demographic decline in the time period under analysis compared to the values used as the basis for calculating the definition of the aforementioned ID no. 127 of 2023 with the consequent reduction of the birth rate."

According to the Tuscany Region, the confirmation of the underestimation of the student population data, used for defining the contingent of DS and DSGA under Interministerial Decree no. 127 of 2023, is also derived from the recent judgment of the TAR for Campania, fourth section, 21 October 2025, no. 6842.

In light of these considerations, the Tuscany Region asserts that the thesis – advanced by the State defense – that the derogations granted by Decree-Laws no. 215 of 2023, as converted, and no. 1 of 2025 became necessary due to the non-compliant conduct of the Regions in approving the school network planning schemes, is unfounded, without merit, and unsupported. It is noted that the State administration had not initiated any preparatory procedure for the exercise of substitute powers, in implementation of Article 8, paragraph 1, of Law of 5 June 2003, no. 131 (Provisions for the adaptation of the order of the Republic to Constitutional Law of 18 October 2001, no. 3), nor had it followed the particular procedural path established in Article 12 of Decree-Law of 31 May 2021, no. 77 (Governance of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan and initial measures to strengthen administrative structures and accelerate and streamline procedures), converted, with amendments, into Law of 29 July 2021, no. 108, concerning the exercise of substitute power within the governance of the PNRR, which applies in the event of failure by Regions or local bodies to comply with obligations and commitments aimed at implementing the PNRR, where the achievement of the intermediate and final objectives of the plan itself is at risk. In the opinion of the Tuscany Region, this confirms that the challenged provisions are not functional to the implementation of the PNRR.

The brief highlights that, with a regional note of 21 October 2025, without acquiescing to the currently challenged discipline, the Tuscany Region found itself forced to submit a request to the Ministry of Education and Merit for the deferral of the deadline for concluding the school network planning procedure for the school year 2026/2027.

According to the Tuscany Region, there was no need to reduce the deadline for school network planning by the Regions, nor to deprive them of the power to autonomously order the deferral of this deadline, since the previous temporal and procedural arrangement would have been already widely adequate to guarantee the opening of registrations for the reference school year.

Furthermore, the Tuscany Region considers unfounded the thesis, of the President of the Council of Ministers, that the provisions on school network planning are predominantly based on titles of exclusive State competence, as already affirmed by this Court with Judgment No. 223 of 2023. In fact, it would refer to and confirm previous constitutional jurisprudence according to which school network planning and the programming of the school network cannot be traced back to the general norms on education and should instead be included in the concurrent legislative competence for the matter of "education."

More specifically, the adverse reference to the State legislative competence in the matter of organization and administrative organization of the State and national public bodies, which would be recalled in Judgment No. 223 of 2023 as the basis for the national discipline for defining the contingent of DS and DSGA personnel and its distribution among the Regions (also referencing Judgment of this Court No. 168 of 2024), would not be pertinent.

The Tuscany Region observes that this legislative competence recognized to the State would concern the national norms that govern the methods for defining the contingent of DS and DSGA personnel and its distribution among the Regions, while the regional legislative competence on school network planning would be preserved and attributed to the concurrent power relating to "education."

It would therefore be certain that in the case at hand there is a concurrence of State legislative powers with those of the Regions, which would have necessitated the provision of adequate instruments of loyal collaboration.

The prevailing material sphere of State competence could not therefore be established in relation to the powers concerning school network planning, confirmed as concurrent regional legislative competence by constitutional jurisprudence.

The Tuscany Region finally highlights that, in any case, the "call for subsidiarity," by which the State assumes tasks that impact matters within the scope of regional legislative competence, requires compliance with the principle of loyal collaboration, whereas in the case at hand the effective participation of the Region would not be guaranteed, as it would not even be "heard."

Consideration in Law

1.– The Tuscany Region has promoted, with the recourse indicated in the heading (reg. ric. no. 18 of 2025), questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 1, paragraph 1, of Law no. 20 of 2025, in the part where it inserted Article 9-bis, paragraph 2, into the text of Decree-Law no. 208 of 2024, with reference to Articles 5, 117, third paragraph, and 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution.

1.1.− The challenged provision stipulates that Article 19, paragraph 5-quater, of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011 "is amended as follows: a) in the third period, the words: "by 30 November” are replaced by the following: "by 31 October”; b) in the fourth period, the words: "With a reasoned resolution of the region” are replaced by the following: "With a decree of the Minister of Education and Merit”.”

1.2.− The appellant considers that these legislative provisions infringe upon regional attributions in educational matters, particularly concerning school network planning, insofar as: i) the anticipation of the deadline for concluding the procedure for approving the school network planning schemes prejudices the proper exercise of its planning; ii) the provision for a ministerial decree to order the extension of the deadline for approving the plans removes competence from the Region.

1.3.− More specifically, the appellant asserts that the challenged provisions are detailed and self-executing norms, directly shaping the modalities of exercising the function of planning the school network, thus compromising the legislative and administrative competences of the Regions in educational matters, under Article 117, third paragraph, and Article 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution.

1.4.− Reference is made, in this regard, to constitutional jurisprudence according to which, it asserts, school network planning and programming cannot be traced back to general norms on education but must instead be included in the concurrent legislative competence area of "education" (mentioning Judgments No. 223 of 2023, No. 147 of 2012, No. 92 of 2011 and No. 235 of 2010).

1.5.− The Tuscany Region further asserts that where the unilateral and authoritative intervention of the Minister of Education and Merit is provided for in order to order the extension of the deadline, the principles of loyal collaboration and subsidiarity, pursuant to Articles 5, 117, third paragraph, and 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution, are also violated.

2.− The President of the Council of Ministers resists the recourse, asserting the groundlessness of all criticisms.

The State defense first states, in the statement of appearance, that the provisions in question were introduced in implementation of the commitments undertaken by Italy with other European States and with the European Institutions regarding the Recovery and Resilience Facility and would therefore be implementing the PNRR.

It then asserts that to ensure the orderly start of the school year, allowing families to submit registration applications, operations related to the definition of the school network must conclude no later than the preceding calendar year, so that pupils can be enrolled in the actually available school sites.

Moreover, the previous legislation allegedly left a very narrow window of time between the conclusion of the operations within the competence of the Regions and the start of the registration phase by families.

This led to the necessity, in the first two years of application of the relevant legislation, to introduce extraordinary measures by law, postponing the deadlines for concluding network planning operations.

Therefore, the choice to advance the deadline for adopting the regional plan by thirty days is allegedly justified and based on competence titles such as "statutory and administrative organization of the State" (Article 117, second paragraph, letter g, Constitution) and "general norms on education" (Article 117, second paragraph, letter n, Constitution).

3.− The President of the Council of Ministers subsequently filed a brief, in which, among other things, it is highlighted that, with reference to the school year 2026/2027, the Executive Board of the Tuscany Region adopted Resolution no. 1455 of 2025, establishing the suspension of the regional procedure for defining the institutions, keeping the number of autonomous school institutions unchanged.

4.– The Tuscany Region also filed a brief, highlighting, among other things, that the deadlines for the procedure for approving the planning scheme were normally respected by the Regions and never prejudiced the timely submission of registrations and the correct start of the school year.

The Tuscany Region refers in the brief also to the fact that, without acquiescing to the discipline challenged herein, it found itself forced to submit (with regional note of 21 October 2025) a request to the Ministry of Education and Merit for the deferral of the deadline for concluding the school network planning procedure for the school year 2026/2027.

5.– For the purpose of defining the scope of the decision (thema decidendum), it is necessary to observe that the criticisms raised by the Tuscany Region focus mainly on the violation of Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution, as the challenged norms, particularly concerning school network planning, pertain to the matter of "education," assigned to concurrent legislative power, and not to the matter of exclusive State competence under Article 117, second paragraph, letter g, of the Constitution ("statutory and administrative organization of the State"), or letter n) ("general norms on education"). This would exclude the constitutional legitimacy of detailed and self-executing State provisions.

Furthermore, as regards the ministerial power to order, without the involvement of the Regions, the extension of the deadline set for 31 October for the approval of the school network planning scheme, the violation of Articles 5, 117, third paragraph, and 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution is also alleged.

6.– Since the Tuscany Region primarily alleges the violation of the constitutional division of powers, it is necessary first to identify the material sphere to which the challenged norms relate, taking into account, in accordance with the criteria set out by the constant jurisprudence of this Court, the object, the ratio, and the purpose of the norms themselves, disregarding marginal aspects and consequential effects, in order to correctly identify the protected interest (among many, Judgments No. 6 of 2023, No. 193 and No. 70 of 2022, No. 104 of 2021, No. 56 of 2020, No. 116 of 2019, No. 108 of 2017, No. 175 of 2016 and No. 245 of 2015).

7.– Paragraph 5-quater of Article 19 of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011, as converted and as amended by Article 9-bis, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law no. 208 of 2024, as converted, intersects with the concurrent legislative competence of the Regions in educational matters concerning school network planning, which has been constantly framed within this material sphere by this Court (Judgments No. 168 of 2024, No. 223 of 2023, No. 284 of 2016, No. 147 of 2012, No. 92 of 2011, No. 235 of 2010, No. 200 of 2009, No. 34 of 2005, No. 13 of 2004 and Ordinance No. 199 of 2024).

It must, however, be noted that constitutional jurisprudence has attributed to the sphere of school network planning or "school network planning" and, therefore, has ascribed to the detailed regulation in educational matters, in particular: i) provisions concerning the definition of teaching staff organic levels (Judgment No. 13 of 2004); ii) the definition of "criteria for defining the organization of the school network, including the dimensional parameters of school institutions" (Judgment No. 34 of 2005); iii) the pre-determination of criteria aimed at planning the school network, having "a direct and immediate impact on situations strictly linked to the various territorial realities and the connected socio-economic needs of each territory, which can and must be assessed at the regional level" (Judgment No. 200 of 2009); iv) the definition of modalities and criteria for the distribution of teaching staff among autonomous school institutions (Judgment No. 235 of 2010); v) the establishment of new schools and new sections in pre-existing nursery schools (Judgment No. 92 of 2011); vi) the mandatory and immediate establishment of comprehensive institutes, by merging nursery schools, primary schools, and lower secondary schools, with the consequent suppression of separately established school institutions, and the definition of the numerical threshold of 1,000 pupils that comprehensive institutes must reach to acquire autonomy, a threshold reduced to 500 for institutions located in small islands, mountain municipalities, and geographical areas characterized by linguistic peculiarities (Judgment No. 147 of 2012).

It thus emerges from prior jurisprudence that the norms attributed by this Court to the matter of "school network planning" relate to the substantial aspect of administrative choices.

8.– Conversely, the challenged norms merely provide: i) a shorter deadline for the adoption of the planning scheme; ii) a ministerial power to extend this deadline.

These norms, therefore, pertain to the procedural aspect upstream of the substantive administrative activity of preparing the planning scheme. Consequently, this remains—and is—a function of regional legislative competence, as no assumption of functions by the State that constitutes an instance of the call for subsidiarity can be found in the challenged legislation.

9.– More generally, the challenged norms are part of a broader program for the reorganization of the school system, linked to a specific commitment undertaken by Italy with the PNRR (Reform 1.3 "Reorganization of the school system" of Mission 4 "Education and Research," Component 1 "Strengthening the offer of educational services: from nursery schools to universities"). The title of Article 9-bis is significant: "Urgent provisions for the implementation of Reform 1.3 'Reorganization of the school system' of Mission 4 – Component 1 of the PNRR" and, even before that, the title of Chapter II, within which Article 9-bis is inserted: "Urgent provisions for the implementation of the PNRR."

Nonetheless, as this Court has already had occasion to point out, this feature (assumption of commitments by Italy through the PNRR) "does not, in itself, nullify regional competences: as results from Article 117, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution, in fact, these are called into question in providing 'for the implementation and execution of international agreements and European Union acts, in compliance with the procedural rules established by State law, which governs the modalities of exercising substitute power in case of non-compliance'" (Judgment No. 223 of 2023).

However, noting the connection with supranational commitments undertaken by the Italian State is useful for determining the exact regulatory context, in order to identify the material sphere to which the challenged norms relate, verifying whether they are classifiable, as the Region claims, under the matter of "education" or – as the State claims – under the matter of "general norms on education" or another matter of exclusive State legislative competence.

10.– The present proceedings primarily revolve around the phrase "general norms on education" as used in Article 117 of the Constitution, in the text amended by Constitutional Law of 18 October 2001, no. 3 (Amendments to Title V of Part Two of the Constitution). This provision, in its second paragraph, letter n), attributes to the State, exclusively, the related legislative power, and in the third paragraph, assigns the matter of education, "subject to the autonomy of school institutions and excluding vocational education and training," to concurrent legislative power.

The phrase is, moreover, found first in Article 33, second paragraph, of the Constitution, according to which "[t]he Republic lays down the general norms on education [...]". It is primarily from Article 33 itself, in conjunction with the subsequent Article 34 of the Constitution, which also concerns school education, that the scope of these general norms, which logically have a unitary value, can be inferred.

In this regard, it should be recalled that this Court (Judgment No. 200 of 2009) highlighted how the Constitution intended to identify the basic characteristics of the school system already in Articles 33 and 34, i.e., among others: a) establishment of schools for all levels and grades (Article 33, second paragraph, Constitution); b) the right of entities and private individuals to establish schools and educational institutions, but without charges to the State (Article 33, third paragraph, Constitution); c) parity between state and non-state schools in terms of their full freedom and equal treatment of pupils (Article 33, fourth paragraph, Constitution); d) the necessity of a State examination for admission to the various levels and grades of school and for the conclusion of the respective cycles of instruction (Article 33, fifth paragraph, Constitution); e) opening of schools to all (Article 34, first paragraph, Constitution); f) mandatory and free lower education (Article 34, second paragraph, Constitution); g) the right of capable and deserving pupils, even if without means, to reach the highest levels of study (Article 34, third paragraph, Constitution); h) the necessity to make this latter right effective through scholarships, family allowances, and other provisions, which must be awarded by competition (Article 34, fourth paragraph, Constitution).

11.– The unitary requirements underlying the general norms on education are bounded only approximately by Articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution, since it is evidently for the State legislator to identify them more precisely, while respecting what is provided therein and complying with all other constitutional parameters, starting with Article 3 of the Constitution and the principle of reasonableness derived therefrom.

This is why the aforementioned Judgment No. 200 of 2009 identified the scope of "general norms on education" also in light of Law of 28 March 2003, no. 53 (Delegation to the Government for the definition of general norms on education and essential levels of performance in educational and vocational training matters), and the related implementing legislative decrees.

The same ruling also affirmed that those concerning "the functional autonomy of school institutions, pursuant to Article 21 of Law of 15 March 1997, no. 59 (Delegation to the Government for the conferral of functions and tasks to Regions and local bodies, for the reform of Public Administration and for administrative simplification), those concerning the structure of collegiate bodies, pursuant to Legislative Decree of 30 June 1999, no. 233 (Reform of territorial collegiate bodies of schools, pursuant to Article 21 of Law of 15 March 1997, no. 59), as well as those concerning school parity and the right to study and education, pursuant to Law of 10 March 2000, no. 62 (Norms for school parity and provisions on the right to study and education)" are "in principle" general norms on education.

On that occasion, it was finally concluded that "[t]he set of the aforementioned legislative sources represents, due to its systematic value aimed at expressly defining the material sphere of exclusive State intervention, a significant reference point for assessing whether new provisions, contained in other laws, can be qualified in the same way." It is in this direction that – therefore – the investigation necessary for the definition of the present proceedings must proceed.

In this investigation, the principles affirmed by constitutional jurisprudence regarding the division of legislative power between the State and the Regions in educational matters must also be taken into account.

12.– With Judgment No. 13 of 2004 this Court affirmed that "[i]n the complex intertwining within the same subject matter of general norms, fundamental principles, regional laws, and autonomous determinations of school institutions, it can be assumed as certain that the prescribed scope of regional legislation lies precisely in the planning of the school network. It is in fact implausible that the constitutional legislator intended to divest the Regions of a function that was already conferred upon them in the form of delegated competence by Article 138 of Legislative Decree no. 112 of 1998" (on this point, more recently, Judgments No. 168 of 2024, No. 223 of 2023, No. 284 of 2016, No. 147 of 2012, No. 92 of 2011, No. 235 of 2010, No. 200 of 2009, No. 34 of 2005 and Ordinance No. 199 of 2024).

With Judgment No. 34 of 2005 this Court, in referring to Judgment No. 13 of 2004, affirmed that "the broad decentralization of administrative functions outlined by Law of 15 March 1997, no. 59 and implemented by Legislative Decree of 31 March 1998, no. 112, saw the delegation of important and new administrative functions to the Regions, including primarily those of planning the integrated educational offer between education and vocational training (Article 138, paragraph 1, letter a), and planning the school network (Article 138, paragraph 1, letter b))."

With Judgment No. 120 of 2005, finally, ruling on the discipline of nursery schools, this Court clarified that the identification of structural and qualitative standards for the latter cannot be included "in the general norms on education and that is, in that discipline characterizing the organization of education"; this is because such identification "presents an essentially different content from the broadly organizational one in which regional legislative power is exercised" (on this point, more recently, Judgment No. 284 of 2016).

13.– As highlighted by the cited Judgment No. 13 of 2004 of this Court, in the matter of education, "general norms, fundamental principles, regional laws," as well as "autonomous determinations of school institutions" are intertwined.

In this context, the identification of a precise line of demarcation between "general norms on education" and the "fundamental principles" of this matter assumes particular importance, given that the former express exclusive State legislative competence while the latter constitute the exercise of concurrent legislative competence with that of the Regions.

This demarcation line was already identified, in general terms, by this Court with Judgment No. 279 of 2005, where it was clarified that "general norms in educational matters are those supported, in relation to their content, by unitary needs and are therefore applicable indiscriminately beyond the strictly regional sphere" and that "[g]eneral norms thus understood differ, within the same matter, from fundamental principles which, although supported by unitary needs, do not exhaust their operativeness in themselves, but inform, differently from the former, other norms, more or less numerous."

Subsequently, with the repeatedly cited Judgment No. 200 of 2009, this Court affirmed that State provisions that "define the structural framework of the national education system and require to be applied in a necessarily unitary and uniform manner throughout the national territory, ensuring, through a homogeneous educational offer, substantial equality of treatment among users who benefit from the education service (primary constitutional interest), as well as freedom to establish schools and parity between state and non-state schools possessing the requirements required by law" belong to the general norms on education. "The discipline relating to the 'autonomy of school institutions,' which are part of the national education system, autonomy to which the third paragraph of Article 117 of the Constitution expressly refers," is also included in this sphere, while those belonging to the category of "fundamental principles" of the matter of "education" are "those norms that, in setting criteria, objectives, directives or disciplines, while aiming to ensure the existence of common basic elements throughout the national territory regarding the modalities of enjoying the education service, on the one hand, are not attributable to that essential structure of the education system that characterizes the general norms on education, and on the other hand, require, for their implementation (and not merely for their execution) the intervention of the regional legislator who must conform his action to the observance of the fundamental principles themselves," highlighting that: "the implementing development of the aforementioned principles is necessary when it comes to regulating situations linked to evaluations involving the specific territorial realities of the Regions, including from a socio-economic perspective" and that "[i]n this perspective, both the sector of regional school planning and that relating to the territorial planning of the school network come into play" (more recently, Judgments No. 48 of 2025, No. 192 and No. 168 of 2024, No. 223 of 2023, No. 62 of 2013, No. 279 and No. 147 of 2012, No. 92 of 2011 and Ordinance no. 199 of 2024).

Also in Judgment No. 200 of 2009 it is further specified that "[t]he norms referred to above – which, by laying down disciplines that do not require further regulatory developments at the level of regional legislation, outline the foundations of the national education system – are functional, even in their organizational relevance aspects, to ensure, through [...] the provision of a substantially uniform educational offer throughout the national territory, the cultural identity of the Country, while respecting the freedom of teaching under Article 33, first paragraph, of the Constitution."

In summary, the ruling stated: "it must be held that the general education system, by its very nature, has a national character, as it is not conceivable that it is based on autonomous legislative initiative of the Regions, limited only by compliance with the fundamental principles set by the State, with inevitable differentiations that in no case could be justified on the basis of logic itself" and that thus "[i]t is a matter of reconciling, on the one hand, basic requirements for 'uniformity' of discipline in the matter throughout the national territory, and, on the other hand, autonomistic requirements that, at the local-territorial level, can find satisfaction through the exercise of relevant planning and management choices only within the territory of each Region."

14.– Given this regulatory and jurisprudential framework, it is easy to observe that the provision of a shorter deadline (31 October instead of 30 November) for the approval of the school network planning scheme, binding (subject to extension) for all Regions, responds precisely to an organizational necessity of a unitary nature, satisfying the requirement to guarantee the orderly start of the school year and allowing families to enroll pupils in the actually available school sites. To this end, in fact, operations related to the definition of the school network must conclude no later than the preceding calendar year.

Also in Senate Document no. 422/2 of the Senate of the Republic and the Chamber of Deputies of 18 February 2025 (Urgent organizational measures to address situations of particular emergency, as well as for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan. D.L. 208/2024 - A.S. 1384) it is stated, on page 108: "[t]he explanatory report states that the provision is necessary in light of the difficulties encountered, since the entry into force of the PNRR reform on school network planning, in relation to planning by the Regions and the excessive proximity of the 30 December deadline to the start of registrations by families, which must necessarily take place by January in order to ensure the regular start of the following school year."

Well then: the complex sequence of procedural phases preparatory to the start of the school year touches upon needs of the entire national community and requires the punctual observance, by all Regions, of the deadlines established by law. And in the case before us, the State has adopted norms concerning the (only) procedure, aimed precisely at satisfying the indicated unitary needs.

15.– In this regard, it is sufficient to consider that personnel mobility procedures are national in nature and that, consequently, to define the transfers of teaching and administrative, technical, and auxiliary staff, the completion of all registration and class formation phases for every school institution throughout the national territory is necessary, such that the presence of even one non-compliant Region, or one delayed beyond the legal deadlines, would vitiate the entire procedure.

16.– Furthermore, as highlighted by the State Attorney's Office, in order to guarantee the regular start of the school year, it is essential to fully define the three-year educational offer plan, based on which families can fully exercise their freedom of educational choice, which in turn requires the exact and timely identification of the number, type, location, and aggregation modalities of school buildings. The challenged norms, therefore, are also intended to protect these areas of autonomy, guaranteeing school institutions the necessary time to make organizational and planning choices concerning educational activities.

17.− Based on these considerations, the challenged norms are attributable to the sphere of exclusive State legislative competence, "general norms on education," under Article 117, second paragraph, letter n), of the Constitution, as their function consists of introducing a regulation of "deadlines" that, for reasons of necessary unity and uniformity, must be applicable throughout the national territory (on this point, Judgments No. 62 of 2013 and No. 200 of 2009). This is for the purpose of guaranteeing the regular start of the school year as well as adequate spaces of autonomy for school institutions, also taking into account the overall program for the reorganization of the school system in which they are included and the precise commitment undertaken by Italy with the PNRR.

18.− As attributable to a sphere of material of exclusive State legislative competence, the norm concerning the shift of the deadline is first an expression of legitimate State attributions.

Indeed, while it is true that, as highlighted by this Court in Judgment No. 223 of 2023, paragraph 5-quater of Article 19 of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011, as converted, affects school network planning within regional legislative competence, it is, in fact, a mediated incidence, since this intervention is in any case predominantly attributable to the matter of "general norms on education."

Constitutional jurisprudence has, in fact, specified that, where a regulation intersects multiple matters attributed by the Constitution to State legislative power and to concurrent (or residual) power of the Regions, it is necessary to identify the material sphere that must be considered prevalent in individual cases (ex plurimis, Judgment No. 44 of 2014, which refers to Judgments No. 118 of 2013, No. 334 of 2010, No. 237 of 2009, and No. 50 of 2005).

In light of the preceding considerations, the fact that Article 138, paragraph 1, letter b), of Legislative Decree no. 112 of 1998 falls under the "administrative functions" that have been "delegated to the Regions" is that of providing for territorial school planning, does not preclude the State from having an autonomous title of legitimacy to lay down general legislative discipline concerning both planning in educational matters and the general lines of school organization, in order to satisfy national needs (thus, again, Judgment No. 200 of 2009).

20. Consolidation of this interpretative finding is provided by Judgment No. 223 of 2023, which deemed the question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 557, of Law no. 197 of 2022, in the part where it inserts paragraphs 5-quater and 5-quinquies into Article 19 of Decree-Law no. 98 of 2011, promoted by the Tuscany, Emilia-Romagna, and Puglia Regions, with reference to Articles 117, third paragraph, 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution and the principle of loyal collaboration under Articles 5 and 120 of the Constitution, unfounded, precisely by affirming that these provisions were predominantly based on different titles of exclusive State legislative competence, such as "statutory and administrative organization of the State" (Article 117, second paragraph, letter g, Constitution) and "general norms on education" (Article 117, second paragraph, letter n, Constitution).

21.– In light of the observations preceding, the question of constitutional legitimacy of the norm that anticipates the deadline for concluding the procedure for approving the school network planning schemes, for violation of Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution, is unfounded.

22.– Once established that the norm that anticipates the deadline for concluding the procedure for approving the school network planning schemes was adopted in the exercise of the exclusive State legislative competence title of "general norms on education," the same must be said for that which provides for ministerial intervention for granting the extension. Since, moreover, that competence title necessarily prevails over the others with which it intersects, a lack of loyal collaboration in conferring upon the Minister of Education and Merit the power to grant the extension of the 31 October deadline cannot be found either.

The provision for the power of extension, in fact, cannot be separated from that of setting the deadline.

Considering the power of extension as detached from the overall assessment of the discipline provided for by Article 9-bis of Decree-Law no. 208 of 2024, as converted, leads the appellant Region, instead, to consider this provision not connected to the general reorganization of the education system. The recourse does not, however, consider the general objective of Article 9-bis, precisely indicated in its title: "Urgent provisions for the implementation of Reform 1.3 'Reorganization of the school system' of Mission 4 – Component 1 of the PNRR." This objective requires a unitary procedural discipline, which may well include a ministerial power of extension, to be exercised taking into account the overall needs presented by the individual Regions. In any case, said power of extension has the effect of making the deadline set by law at 31 October less rigid for the Regions, thus allowing, in case of need (as occurred in the present case), to request a deferral of the deadline itself.

It is nevertheless appropriate – given, as seen, the interference of the aforementioned discipline with school network planning within regional legislative competence – a deeper examination regarding the criticism concerning the lack of regional involvement for the purpose of granting the extension.

It must be recalled that, in verifying compliance with regional attributions, this Court has reiterated, even recently, that "the necessary instruments of collaboration are not uniform, but diversify 'in relation to the type of interests involved and the nature and intensity of the unitary needs that must be satisfied' (Judgment No. 62 of 2005) as well as the competences affected" (Judgment No. 6 of 2023, but see also Judgment No. 169 of 2020, which emphasizes the "concrete modalities of exercising competences in a specific material sphere").

Precisely in consideration of the "level of interests involved" (Judgments No. 168 of 2021 and No. 179 of 2019), it is appropriate to highlight that the adoption of the planning scheme constitutes a compliance invariably sequenced so as to be operational before the start of each school year, which would otherwise risk being postponed.

In other words: the functional needs of the school system cannot fail to influence the assessment of the modalities of regional involvement.

In this regard, it must be stated that the procedural sequence characterizing the granting of the extension of the deadline for approving the planning scheme begins with a specific request from the Region (as also occurred in the present case), in which all the reasons that might justify granting the extension can be indicated.

Pursuant to Law of 7 August 1990, no. 241 (New norms on administrative procedure and the right of access to administrative documents), which expresses a general need for a pluralistic structure of administrative proceedings, the most suitable collaboration between the involved administrations must then be guaranteed.

In the regime outlined by the challenged norms, the involvement of both institutional subjects concerned and the guarantee of their loyal collaboration are therefore inherent in the nature of the matter (in re ipsa).

22.– The question concerning the violation of Articles 5, 117, third paragraph, and 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution must therefore also be declared unfounded.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, of Law of 28 February 2025, no. 20 (Conversion into law, with amendments, of Decree-Law of 31 December 2024, no. 208, containing urgent organizational measures to address situations of particular emergency, as well as for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan), in the part where it introduces, into the text of Decree-Law of 31 December 2024, no. 208 (Urgent organizational measures to address situations of particular emergency, as well as for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan), Article 9-bis, paragraph 2, promoted, with reference to Articles 5, 117, third paragraph, and 118, first and second paragraphs, of the Constitution, by the Tuscany Region with the recourse indicated in the heading.

Decided thus in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 18 November 2025.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Massimo LUCIANI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Registrar Director

Filed in the Registry on 23 December 2025