JUDGMENT NO. 206

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 rendered the following

JUDGMENT

in the dispute concerning conflict of attribution between State powers, arising from the resolution of the Parliamentary Commission for Guidance and Supervision of Radio and Television Services dated April 2, 2025, Provisions concerning political communication, self-managed messages, and information provided by the concessionaire of the public radio, television, and multimedia service in relation to the campaign for the abrogative popular referendums scheduled for June 8 and 9, 2025, promoted by the Committee for the Promotion of the Citizenship Referendum, in the person of its legal representative, the Honourable Riccardo Magi, with an appeal served on July 18, 2025, filed in the Registry on August 11, 2025, registered under no. 7 of the register of conflicts between State powers for the year 2025, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 34, special series one, of the year 2025, merits stage.

Having seen the act of constitution of the Parliamentary Commission for Guidance and Supervision of Radio and Television Services;

Having heard Judge Rapporteur Marco D’Alberti in the public hearing of November 19, 2025;

Having heard the attorneys Giuliano Fonderico and Gianlorenzo Ioannides for the Committee for the Promotion of the Citizenship Referendum, as well as the State attorneys Gianna Galluzzo and Giancarlo Caselli for the Parliamentary Commission for Guidance and Supervision of Radio and Television Services;

Deliberated in the Chamber of Council on November 19, 2025.

Matters of Fact

1.– With an appeal filed on May 28, 2025, and served on August 11, 2025 (conflict of powers reg. no. 7 of 2025), the Committee for the Promotion of the Citizenship Referendum (hereinafter: the Committee), in the person of the Honourable Riccardo Magi, initiated a conflict of attribution between State powers against the Parliamentary Commission for Guidance and Supervision of Radio and Television Services (hereinafter: the Commission), for the purpose of annulling Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the resolution of April 2, 2025, entitled "Provisions concerning political communication, self-managed messages, and information provided by the concessionaire of the public radio, television, and multimedia service in relation to the campaign for the abrogative popular referendums scheduled for June 8 and 9, 2025" (hereinafter: the Resolution).

2.– The appellant alleged the constitutional illegitimacy of the said Resolution "insofar as, under Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, it does not ensure that the appealing Committee has suitable political communication spaces to illustrate the reasons underlying the referendum request and, in any case, does not contain provisions suitable to impose upon the concessionaire of the public radio and television service the obligation to ensure a high level of information on the topics covered by the referendum."

In the appellant’s view, the Resolution leads to the compression of the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the Committee under Articles 2, 3, 48, and 75 of the Constitution, as implemented by Articles 1, 2, and 5 of Law no. 28 of February 22, 2000 (Provisions for equal access to means of information during electoral and referendum campaigns and for political communication), and by Articles 4, 6, 59, 62, and 67 of Legislative Decree no. 208 of November 8, 2021, concerning "Implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States relating to the provision of audiovisual media services in view of the evolution of market realities."

2.1.– In point of fact, the Committee submitted that it was established to promote an abrogative referendum pursuant to Article 75 of the Constitution on the following question: "Do you wish to repeal Article 9, paragraph 1, letter b), limited to the words 'adopted by an Italian citizen' and 'subsequently to the adoption'; as well as letter f), containing the following provision: 'f) for the foreigner who has legally resided in the territory of the Republic for at least ten years.'", of Law no. 91 of February 5, 1992, concerning new rules on citizenship?". The appellant stated that on September 4, 2024, 637,487 signatures of eligible voters requesting the convening of the referendum consultations on the aforementioned question were deposited at the Central Office for Referendums of the Court of Cassation.

Following the judgment of this Court no. 11 of 2025, which declared the aforementioned request admissible, the referendum was called by the Presidential Decree of March 31, 2025 (Calling of the abrogative popular referendum entitled: "Italian Citizenship: Halving of the required legal residence period in Italy for applying for Italian citizenship for adult non-EU foreigners from 10 to 5 years"), and the referendum consultations were convened for June 8 and 9, 2025.

In the appellant’s opinion, the challenged Resolution would be constitutionally illegitimate insofar as it "did not adequately differentiate and enhance the position of the appealing Committee [...] by not recognizing any specific role to it in illustrating the content of the referendum proposal it promoted." Furthermore, the Resolution failed to guarantee that "the radio and television media would offer the electorate complete information on the issues subject to the referendum."

2.2.– Regarding the admissibility of the conflict, the Committee asserted the existence of the subjective requirement, citing the case law of this Court according to which the promoters of a referendum are "competent to definitively declare, within the referendum procedure, the will of the fraction of the electorate holding the right of initiative provided for by Article 75 of the Constitution" (among many others, judgment of this Court no. 502 of 2000 is cited). The promoters hold a constitutionally relevant and guaranteed function, as they activate popular sovereignty in the exercise of referendum powers and cooperate with other bodies and powers in realizing the popular consultation (among others, order of this Court no. 137 of 2000 is cited).

Concerning the objective requirement for the admissibility of the conflict, the Committee highlighted that only with full awareness of the issues subject to the referendum could voters exercise their civic duty and cast a free and informed vote, as provided for by Article 48 of the Constitution. In the absence of such awareness, Article 75 of the Constitution would be deprived of its real object, which is the faculty of a fraction of the electorate to exercise a tool of direct democracy (judgments of this Court no. 112 of 1993 and no. 502 of 2000 are cited).

The challenged Resolution constitutes a misuse of the Commission's power to regulate political communication during the referendum campaign. By not guaranteeing the Committee the necessary spaces to illustrate the legislation subject to the referendum and the reasons for which its repeal is sought, and by not requiring RAI to guarantee a minimum level of information, it is considered prejudicial to the constitutionally recognized powers of the Committee. Hence the admissibility of the conflict also under the objective profile.

2.3.– As to the merits of the conflict, the appellant alleged the constitutional illegitimacy of the challenged Resolution, emphasizing its conflict with Articles 2, 3, 48, and 75 of the Constitution, as well as with Articles 1, 2, and 5 of Law no. 28 of 2000 and Articles 4, 6, 59, 62, and 67 of Legislative Decree no. 208 of 2021. The aforementioned ordinary law provisions guarantee full parity among political subjects intervening in radio and television broadcasts dedicated to the referendum and grant the Commission the task of defining specific criteria to which radio and television broadcasts must conform.

2.3.1.– Specifically, Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Resolution – in identifying the subjects who may participate in radio and television broadcasts intended to illustrate the referendum question – failed to recognize any specific role for the appealing Committee. Therefore, it should be ascribed to the residual category of other political subjects indicated by letter d) of the same Article 3, paragraph 1 (committees, associations, and other collective bodies, however named, representing social and political forces of national relevance): the latter may participate in broadcasts dealing with matters pertinent to the referendum, but they are subject to the obligations set out in the same Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, in order to demonstrate their standing to take part.

The impairment of the appellant’s constitutional prerogatives derives both from the failure to assign dedicated communication spaces in radio and television broadcasts and from the necessity that its participation in television and radio debates on referendum topics must occur "taking into account the spaces available in each debate" (Article 5, paragraph 1, letter b, of the Resolution).

Therefore, the Committee has been relegated to a lesser role compared to other political subjects, whereas it should be recognized a "differentiated role," enabling it to effectively illustrate the question and the reasons for the referendum. The challenged Resolution is thus constitutionally illegitimate for failing to guarantee that "the radio and television media offer the electorate complete information on the issues subject to the referendum."

2.3.2.– Furthermore, the Commission's Resolution does not contain regulations regarding the quantitative and qualitative aspects of political communication and informational broadcasts suitable to guarantee a minimum level of information on referendum topics. This results in a violation of Article 2, paragraphs 1, 4, and 5, of Law no. 28 of 2000 and Articles 2, 3, 48, and 75 of the Constitution, as the possibility for voters to participate freely and knowingly in the formation of national policy is hindered.

In this regard, the appellant observed that Articles 5, paragraphs 6 and 7, of the challenged Resolution establish a rigid regulation of the modalities through which referendum issues may be addressed in radio and television programs: however, there is a lack of regulation on the level of information that must be guaranteed, for example, through the provision of a minimum number of broadcasts addressing referendum-related topics. Ultimately, the challenged Resolution ends up obstructing the realization of the referendum institution, as a tool of direct democracy.

2.4.– Alternatively, should it be considered that the challenged Resolution complies with the requirements of Article 4, paragraph 2, of Law no. 28 of 2000, concerning the allocation of radio and television spaces among political subjects, the appellant requested that, in the exercise of its power of self-referral, this Court raise before itself a question of constitutional legitimacy regarding the aforementioned provision, insofar as it does not stipulate that – within the scope of radio and television political communication during the referendum campaign – the committee promoting a referendum is entitled to a "differentiated position," corresponding to the role it holds in the referendum procedure, as well as insofar as it does not stipulate that minimum spaces of political radio and television communication must be recognized, sufficient to guarantee the right of the electorate to receive complete, timely, and exhaustive information.

The infringement of the Committee's prerogatives, which is prevented from effectively illustrating the referendum question, reflects the violation of the constitutional principles set out in Articles 2, 3, 48, and 75 of the Constitution and the right of citizens to cast a free and informed vote.

As an interim measure, the appellant requested the suspension of the Resolution and the adoption of any appropriate precautionary measure.

2.5.– With a memorandum filed close to the public hearing, the Committee insisted on the acceptance of the appeal.

2.5.1.– Firstly, the appellant appended the data from the monitoring of time allocated by RAI radio and television broadcasters to the citizenship referendum topics. These data indicated that the time allocated to these matters was minimal.

2.5.2.– The Committee reiterated its standing to bring the conflict, citing constitutional case law which recognizes that promoting committees have a constitutionally relevant and guaranteed function, representing the subjects legitimately entitled to submit the referendum request (judgments no. 169 of 2011, no. 69 of 1978, and order no. 2 of 1978 of this Court are cited).

The appellant further emphasized that the power of attorney to initiate the present conflict was conferred by the Honourable Riccardo Magi who, in addition to being the legal representative of the Committee, is the first among the eligible voters who promoted and submitted the referendum request.

2.5.3.– Regarding the merits of the conflict, the appellant's defense reiterated that the challenged Resolution would have compromised the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the promoters, referencing arguments already illustrated in the appeal.

In the appellant's view, the Resolution focuses exclusively on aspects aimed at guaranteeing equal conditions among the various subjects admitted to the broadcasts, but contains no provision guaranteeing a minimum quantitative and qualitative level of political information and communication. This would result in the opposite effect of the intended objectives: in order to avoid the risk of violating the complex provisions of the Resolution, RAI would have been induced to limit the broadcasts subject to it, as evidenced by the data showing that the time devoted to information and communication on referendum matters was negligible.

2.5.4.– Finally, the Committee reiterated the request, submitted alternatively, for the self-referral of the question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 4, paragraph 2, of Law no. 28 of 2000.

3.– By presidential decree of May 29, 2025, the hearing in Chamber of Council on the request for suspension and granting of precautionary measures was set, and the parties were authorized to be heard. By order no. 79 of 2025, the precautionary request submitted by the appellant party was rejected due to lack of prerequisites.

The conflict was declared admissible, pursuant to Article 37, first paragraph, of Law no. 87 of March 11, 1953 (Rules on the constitution and functioning of the Constitutional Court), by subsequent Order no. 98 of 2025.

4.– The Commission constituted itself in this proceeding with an act filed on September 4, 2025, requesting that the conflict be dismissed.

4.1.– Regarding the alleged equation of the Committee with the other subjects under Article 3, paragraph 1, letter d), of the Resolution, the Commission stated that it has consistently adopted resolutions similar to the one under examination, in which specific radio and television spaces have not been reserved for the promoting committees compared to other subjects admitted to participate.

Moreover, the Commission’s Resolution may legitimately provide – as has also occurred in previous referendum campaigns – that direct debates take place in political communication radio and television broadcasts, with the participation of representatives of both political forces and promoting and opposing committees. The Commission's discretion is limited only by the suitability and adequacy of its choices with respect to the objective to be achieved, which is correct and complete radio and television information, instrumental to the expression of an informed vote by the electorate (judgment of this Court no. 49 of 1998 is cited).

4.2.– The Commission also emphasized that – considering the schedule of broadcasts aired during the referendum campaign period – there has been no unreasonable compression of the promoters' attribution concerning the citizenship referendum. Indeed, in the radio and television debates in which the appealing Committee participated, it had the opportunity to fully illustrate the reasons supporting its position.

The contents of the Resolution did not violate the constitutional principles cited by the appellant, as the need for specifically dedicated radio and television and informational treatment for the promoting committees cannot be inferred from them.

4.3.– The Commission also contested the assertion that the Resolution, under Article 5, paragraph 1, letter b), limited the communication spaces recognized to the Committee, contrary to Article 52 of Law no. 352 of May 25, 1970 (Rules on referendums provided for by the Constitution and on the legislative initiative of the people), which requires the equal treatment of promoting committees with political parties or groups.

In fact, the appellant failed to consider that the participation of parliamentary political forces in television and radio debates is also subject to equal, if not stricter, conditions. These are established by Article 5, paragraph 1, letter a), of the Resolution, which provides that the participation of political forces referred to in Article 3, paragraph 1, letters a), b), and c), must occur "in a manner that ensures equal conditions and in relation to the need to divide the spaces equally between the opposing voting indications," also specifying that "their participation can only take place after they have declared their position with respect to each referendum question."

4.4.– Regarding the complaint concerning the lack of detailed regulation of the quantitative aspects of information and in-depth journalistic programs on referendum topics, the Commission stressed the difference between political communication and information programs, in light of the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 4 of Law no. 28 of 2000.

The regulation of political communication is established by the Commission and the Authority for the Guarantees in Communications (AGCOM), according to the criteria set by Law no. 28 of 2000 itself, characterized by the principle of equal conditions. Furthermore, as for informational and in-depth journalistic programs, no specific indication regarding the minimum number of broadcasts to be aired dealing with referendum topics, nor the minimum number of minutes to be dedicated to them, can be found in any previous resolution of the same Commission.

The defending party also pointed out that, pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 2, of the challenged Resolution, programs of an informational nature must conform "with particular rigor, as regards the matters subject to the referendum questions, to the criteria of protection of pluralism, impartiality, independence, completeness, objectivity, balanced gender representation, and equal treatment among the different political subjects."

The Commission also referred to Article 7, paragraph 3, of the challenged Resolution, which establishes certain specific obligations for the responsible editors of informational programs, as well as their presenters and directors, in order to ensure the maximum possible information on referendum topics.

The Commission reported that, starting from the resolution regulating the 2024 European Parliament elections campaign, qualitative criteria were introduced alongside the aforementioned requirements, aiming to establish: a) that the principle of equal treatment in informational programs is realized in such a way that each political subject has analogous opportunities to be heard; b) that equal treatment within these programs is also guaranteed by considering the time slot of the broadcasts and the audience figures; c) that the visibility of these programs is calculated considering an indicator derived from the ratio between the average audiences recorded for each time slot by each RAI network in March 2025 and the average audiences recorded by the total television audience throughout the day.

4.5.– In conclusion, in the Commission's view, the Resolution provided for regulations aimed at ensuring the completeness of information regarding referendum topics, in compliance with the principles set forth by Law no. 28 of 2000.

In particular, concerning political communication, programming was provided across all three generalist networks, in prime time slots, before or after news programs, according to a schedule comparable to that of the previous referendum campaign in 2022.

As for informational programs, the Resolution required compliance with the principle of equal treatment, taking into account not only quantitative indices but also qualitative criteria, based on visibility according to time slots and recorded audience figures.

Legal Considerations

1.– The Committee for the Promotion of the Citizenship Referendum initiated a conflict of attribution between State powers against the Parliamentary Commission for Guidance and Supervision of Radio and Television Services, for the purpose of annulling Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Resolution of April 2, 2025, whereby the Commission regulated the forms and modalities of RAI's radio and television programming dedicated to the campaign for the abrogative popular referendums scheduled for June 8 and 9, 2025.

These provisions are deemed prejudicial to the constitutional powers guaranteed to the promoters of the abrogative referendum by Articles 2, 3, 48, and 75 of the Constitution, as implemented by Articles 1, 2, and 5 of Law no. 28 of 2000 and Articles 4, 6, 59, 62, and 67 of Legislative Decree no. 208 of 2021.

The Resolution is deemed constitutionally illegitimate "insofar as, under Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, it does not ensure that the appealing Committee has suitable political communication spaces to illustrate the reasons underlying the referendum request and, in any case, does not contain provisions suitable to impose upon the concessionaire of the public radio and television service the obligation to ensure a high level of information on the topics covered by the referendum."

2.– Given the preliminary nature of the order admitting the conflict, it is necessary at this stage to definitively ascertain the presence of the subjective and objective requirements that legitimize the submission of the conflict, pursuant to Articles 134 of the Constitution and Article 37, first paragraph, of Law no. 87 of 1953.

3.– In terms of active legitimacy, it should be noted that, since 1978, the case law of this Court has consistently recognized that electors, numbering no less than 500,000, who sign a referendum request, hold a constitutionally relevant and guaranteed function, as they activate popular sovereignty in the exercise of referendum powers and cooperate with other bodies and powers in realizing the popular consultation (among many others, orders no. 169 of 2011, no. 172 of 2009, no. 38 of 2008, no. 195 of 2003, and no. 17 of 1978). The fraction of the electorate that has signed the referendum request is therefore a State power, holder of the "power to propose such a request, with the effect of making the convening of the electorate constitutionally due" (judgment no. 69 of 1978).

The promoters of the referendum request are specifically competent to definitively declare the will of the fraction of the electorate holding the right of initiative under Article 75 of the Constitution; they are therefore entitled to bring an appeal for conflict of attribution between State powers (among many others, judgments no. 174 of 2009, no. 502 of 2000, no. 49 of 1998, no. 102 of 1997, no. 161 of 1995, and no. 69 of 1978; orders no. 95 of 2020, no. 169 of 2011, no. 172 of 2009, no. 198 of 2005, no. 195 of 2003, no. 137 of 2000, no. 172, no. 171, no. 131, and no. 9 of 1997; no. 226 and no. 118 of 1995; no. 17 of 1978).

The promoters exercise powers that are their own, but in the interest of other subjects: they act as representatives of the electors who signed the referendum request (among many others, judgments no. 102 of 1997 and no. 69 of 1978; orders no. 172, no. 13, and no. 9 of 1997). Even in recent times, the standing of the promoters "in representation of the subjects legitimately entitled to submit the referendum request" has been recognized (judgment no. 195 of 2020). This is a peculiar form of institutional representation, of a public law nature, founded not on an electoral mandate but on a community of intent between those who promoted the referendum request and those who shared this initiative by signing the request itself.

By virtue of this institutional representative relationship, the promoters are the exponential subjects of the State power constituted by the signatories who exercise a constitutionally relevant function, as it aims to "activate popular sovereignty in the exercise of a direct normative power, even if limited to repeal" (judgment no. 69 of 1978; in the same sense, orders no. 169 of 2011, no. 38 of 2008, no. 198 of 2005, no. 195 of 2003, and no. 9 of 1997).

The promoters may also adopt the form of a committee, i.e., an organizational structure designed to allow the collective exercise of the powers recognized to them by the legal system. Whatever the chosen form, the constitutional relevance of the function performed by the signatories for the purpose of adopting a source act nonetheless requires harmony between the represented and the representatives and demands that the organizational structure acting for the State power invested with this very relevant function is not uncertain or mutable, but has a precise identity and cannot be altered by the presence of extraneous subjects.

Only the promoters, possibly constituted as a committee, are therefore the legally capable subjects to represent before this Court the interests of the State power constituted by the 500,000 eligible voters who signed the referendum request.

4.– Having established the above, it is necessary to verify whether, in the present case, the appealing Committee can be considered legitimate to promote the conflict.

Indeed, in the Order no. 98 of 2025, by which the present conflict was preliminarily declared admissible, this Court already noted that "any further decision, including on admissibility, remains without prejudice, and the aspect of the subjective standing of the appealing Committee may be examined in depth in the adversarial process between the parties, with particular regard to the timing of the Committee's constitution and its composition."

Following the in-depth scrutiny permitted at this stage, the conclusion must be negative.

Therefore, the conflict under examination must be declared inadmissible due to the lack of active standing of the appealing Committee.

5.– In terms of fact, it should be noted that the present proceeding was initiated by an appeal signed by the Honourable Riccardo Magi, in his declared capacity as the legal representative of the Committee for the Promotion of the Citizenship Referendum. From the introductory appeal of the conflict and the attached documents, certain circumstances are proven that lead to denying the appealing subject the qualification of Promoting Committee.

In particular, in addition to thirteen of the original nineteen promoters, subjects who in no way participated in the impetus activities of the referendum process also participated in the constitution of the Committee. Moreover, the Committee was established after the commencement of the referendum process and the deposit of signatures with the Central Office for Referendums of the Court of Cassation.

6.– The standing of promoters constituted as a committee is undisputed (among many others, judgment no. 102 of 1997; orders no. 195 of 2020, no. 169 of 2011, no. 13 of 1997). In fact, assuming the form of a committee represents an unchallengeable organizational choice that does not affect the status of promoters of the subjects who comprise it.

However, the constitutive act of the Committee shows that it includes, as stated, certain subjects who did not in any way participate in the activities carried out by the promoters for the initiation of the referendum process. These subjects are therefore not identified with the original promoters, i.e., those who—having assumed the initiative for the submission of the referendum request—act as representatives of the State power holding the defendable attributions in the conflict and are entitled to promote it.

The identity of the promoters, attested by the minutes of the activities they carried out before the Central Office for Referendums at the Court of Cassation, is decisive for the maturation of the decision to sign the referendum request, as it is based on this identity that the legal system recognizes them the power to represent the signatories. The composition of the appealing Committee is incompatible with this original identity. Not because it comprises a number of subjects smaller than the original promoters (sixteen out of nineteen), but because the Committee also includes other subjects external to them, who did not express their abrogative intent from the moment the referendum was promoted. Therefore, they cannot be considered representatives of the State power constituted by the fraction of the electorate that signed the referendum request.

In conclusion, the presence within the appealing Committee of subjects external to the original promoters is such as to exclude the community of intent and harmony that must exist, as stated, between those who initiated the referendum procedure and the collective body constituted after this initiation.

This conclusion is also confirmed by the Statute of the Committee, produced in the proceedings by the appellant, where, under Article 7, the possibility is contemplated that the assembly of the Committee itself may also include further subjects: "a representative for each organization of right holders; [...] a representative for each organization that joins the Committee by paying a contribution of 5000 (five thousand) euros." This serves as confirmation that the appealing Committee itself interprets itself as a subject distinct from the original promoters.

The standing to promote the conflict must, in fact, be recognized only to those who have effectively held the quality of promoters from the initial phase of submitting the referendum request and collecting signatures. For the purposes of submitting the conflict, the promoters may constitute themselves as a committee even after this initial phase, provided that the collective body is composed exclusively of subjects who are among the original promoters.

The precise delimitation of the scope of subjects entitled to submit the conflict derives from the essential need not to distort the judgment under Article 134 of the Constitution and to avoid drifts toward granting standing to mutable aggregations of persons or to individual citizens.

7.– The conflict of attribution between State powers promoted by the Committee for the Promotion of the Citizenship Referendum must therefore be declared inadmissible.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares inadmissible the conflict of attribution between State powers promoted against the Parliamentary Commission for Guidance and Supervision of Radio and Television Services, by the Committee for the Promotion of the Citizenship Referendum with the appeal indicated in the heading.

So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on November 19, 2025.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Marco D'ALBERTI, Rapporteur

Igor DI BERNARDINI, Chancellor

Filed in the Registry on December 29, 2025