JUDGMENT NO. 17

YEAR 2026

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

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

has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the constitutional legitimacy review proceedings concerning articles 259, paragraph 1, 261, paragraph 4, and 262, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree of August 18, 2000, no. 267 (Consolidated Text of Laws on the Organization of Local Authorities), initiated by the Regional Administrative Court for Campania, First Section, with an order dated April 10, 2025, registered under no. 87 of the register of orders for 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 21, special series, of the year 2025.

Having reviewed the appearance of the Municipality of Castel Morrone;

Having heard in the public hearing of January 13, 2026, the Reporting Judge Angelo Buscema;

Having heard the lawyer Erik Furno for the Municipality of Castel Morrone;

Deliberated in the chamber of counsel on January 13, 2026.

Facts Considered

1.– The Regional Administrative Court for Campania, First Section, with order of April 10, 2025, registered under no. 87 of the register of orders for 2025, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding articles 259, paragraph 1, 261, paragraph 4, and 262, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree of August 18, 2000, no. 267 (Consolidated Text of Laws on the Organization of Local Authorities), in reference to articles 3, 5, 51, 97, and 114 of the Constitution.

The referring court reports that it was addressed by certain opposition councillors of the Municipality of Castel Morrone who, asserting the necessity of ex lege dissolution of the Municipality, already in a state of financial distress, challenged the resolution of the Municipal Board whereby the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget was approved (resolution of January 4, 2025, no. 3) and the acts presupposing, connected to, or resulting therefrom, including: the resolution of the Municipal Board of January 4, 2025, no. 2, approving the single programming document 2024-2026; the Municipality's communication to the Ministry of the Interior transmitting the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget; the communication from the Prefect of Caserta of December 20, 2024, which, after the expiry of the deadline under art. 259 of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities, formally requested the Municipal Council to approve the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget within 20 days; the resolution of the Municipal Council of January 18, 2025, no. 2, approving the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget and its appendices for the three-year period 2024-2026; the measure by which the Ministry of the Interior deemed admissible the approval of the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget despite the expiration of the three-month period stipulated by art. 259 of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities.

1.1.– Regarding the non-manifest groundlessness of the questions, the referring court notes that the dissolution of municipal councils is strictly provided for by art. 141 of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities, which prescribes it, inter alia, for: a) the commission of acts contrary to the Constitution, serious and persistent violations of the law, or serious reasons of public order; b) the impossibility of ensuring the normal functioning of bodies and services, for the causes therein listed; c) the failure to approve the budget within the statutory time limits; d) in municipalities with more than one thousand inhabitants, the failure to adopt the urban planning instrument within 18 months of the election of the bodies.

The referring court observes that in the cases listed under c) and d), pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 2-bis of art. 141 of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities, the failure to comply with the statutory deadlines would entail the initiation of a solicitation procedure and, only in cases of persistent non-compliance, the commencement of the dissolution procedure.

The same regulatory framework, however, is not provided for the financially distressed entity whose Council fails to transmit the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget to the Ministry of the Interior within three months from the appointment of the extraordinary liquidation body. This is because – in the face of the circumvention of the deadline deemed "peremptory" by articles 259, paragraph 1, and 261, paragraph 4, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities – art. 262, paragraph 1, of the same Legislative Decree assimilates this situation to the case described in art. 141, paragraph 1, letter a), which provides for the dissolution of the Council for acts contrary to the Constitution, serious and persistent violations of the law, or serious reasons of public order.

The challenged provisions allegedly violate art. 3 of the Constitution in terms of reasonableness, because, by excluding the Prefect's power of solicitation, they equate the failure to approve the sustainably balanced budget proposal within the peremptory deadline of three months to the commission of acts contrary to the Constitution, serious and persistent violations of the law, or serious reasons of public order, leading to the automatic dissolution of the Municipal Council without necessarily establishing the gravity or persistence of any negative or omission conduct by the local authority.

The principle of equality under art. 3 of the Constitution is also allegedly violated, as, according to the referring court, the failure to submit the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget within the time limits constitutes a factual situation entirely analogous to that of the failure to approve the ordinary municipal budget, in which case the legal system allows the Prefect to activate the power of solicitation pursuant to art. 141, paragraph 2, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities. Furthermore, the principle of good governance of the public administration under art. 97 of the Constitution is allegedly violated, because the challenged provisions deviate from the purpose they should pursue in compliance with local autonomy (reference is made to this Court’s Judgment No. 223 of 2022).

Finally, the referring court asserts that the challenged provisions, insofar as they prevent the continuation of the functions of the Municipal Council and the performance of the mandate of the councillors, violate the constitutional principles aimed at protecting local autonomies under articles 5 and 114 of the Constitution, as well as the right enshrined in art. 51 of the Constitution, according to which every citizen must be able to access and hold elected office.

2.– The Municipality of Castel Morrone appeared in the proceedings, requesting that the constitutional legitimacy questions raised by the TAR Campania be upheld; in a subsequent brief, filed on December 23, 2025, the Municipality reiterated the same arguments.

The Municipality argues that the dissolution of the Municipal Council is an entirely extraordinary and exceptional measure to be ordered only in the cases and for the reasons strictly provided for by law. In the present case, ruling out that a reason of public order may apply, the dissolution of the Municipal Council could only be justified by assessing the violation of the peremptory deadline for the submission of a proposal for a sustainably balanced budget as a violation of fundamental norms or principles of the legal system or as a particularly serious violation of the law, prolonged over time.

In the present case, the delay of the Municipal Council in resolving on the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget, according to the Municipality, could not be construed as symptomatic of an anti-legal will of the body, nor could the characteristics of gravity and persistence over time of the violation of law be deemed present.

Hence the lack of reasonableness and the violation of art. 3 of the Constitution, also under the aspect of the principle of equality, given the substantial equivalence deemed to exist between the cases of failure to approve the ordinary budget and the sustainably balanced budget.

The challenged legislation would also violate the principles of protection of local autonomies, enshrined in articles 5 and 114 of the Constitution, as well as the right of citizens to access and remain in public office ex art. 51 of the Constitution, as it is necessary to guarantee the preservation of the public duty performed based on the electoral consent obtained, since, given the strictly punitive nature of dissolution, the latter would constitute the ultima ratio for the restoration of the violated legality.

Legal Considerations

3.– The TAR Campania, First Section, with the order cited in the preamble (Order reg. no. 87 of 2025), raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding articles 259, paragraph 1, 261, paragraph 4, and 262, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 267 of 2000, which provide, for financially deficient or distressed entities, respectively: a) a peremptory deadline by which to submit a proposal for a sustainably balanced budget forecast to the Ministry of the Interior; b) a peremptory deadline by which to submit a new budget proposal capable of removing the causes that prevented a favorable opinion from the relevant ministerial commission; c) the dissolution of the entity that has failed to comply with the indicated deadlines, in reference to articles 3, 5, 51, 97, and 114 of the Constitution.

The challenged provisions allegedly violate art. 3 of the Constitution due to lack of reasonableness because, by excluding the Prefect’s power of solicitation, they equate – through the reference made by the challenged art. 262, paragraph 1, to the preceding art. 141, paragraph 1, letter a) – the case of the failure to approve the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget by the Municipal Council within the peremptory deadline of three months to a case of commission of acts contrary to the Constitution, serious and persistent violations of the law, or serious reasons of public order, resulting in the automatic dissolution of the Municipal Council, without necessarily establishing the gravity or persistence of any negative or omission conduct by the local authority.

The failure to submit the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget within the time limits, moreover, in the referring court's opinion, represents a factual situation analogous to that of the failure to approve the municipal budget, in which case the legal system allows the Prefect to activate the power of solicitation pursuant to art. 141, paragraph 2, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities. For this reason, the principle of equality under art. 3 of the Constitution and the principle of good governance of the public administration under art. 97 of the Constitution are also allegedly violated, as the challenged provisions diverge from the objective they should pursue, in compliance with local autonomy.

Finally, the challenged provisions, insofar as they prevent the continuation of the functions of the Municipal Council and the performance of the mandate of the councillors, violate articles 5 and 114 of the Constitution, aimed at protecting local autonomies, and art. 51 of the Constitution, which protects the right of every citizen to access and hold elected office.

4.– In the opinion of the Municipality of Castel Morrone, appearing in the proceedings, the challenged legislation violates art. 3 of the Constitution under the aspect of the principle of equality, considering the cases of failure to approve the ordinary budget and the sustainably balanced budget as substantially equivalent. However, in the first case, art. 141, paragraph 2, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities establishes that "the regional oversight body shall grant the council [...] a deadline not exceeding 20 days for its approval, after which it shall substitute itself, through a designated commissioner, for the defaulting administration"; in the second case, art. 262, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities establishes that failure to observe the deadline constitutes the case described in art. 141, paragraph 1, letter a), of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities, which entails the automatic dissolution of the Municipal Council.

The Council's delay in resolving on the proposal for a sustainably balanced budget could not, according to the Municipality, be construed as symptomatic of an anti-legal will of the body, nor could the characteristics of gravity and persistence over time of the violation of law be deemed present. Hence the lack of reasonableness and, in particular, the violation of art. 3 of the Constitution.

The challenged legislation would also violate the principles of protection of local autonomies, established by articles 5 and 114 of the Constitution, as well as the right of citizens to access and remain in public office ex art. 51 of the Constitution, as it is necessary to guarantee the preservation of the public duty performed based on the electoral consent obtained.

5.– With Judgment No. 91 of 2025, filed on July 1, this Court deemed questions identical to those raised by the order cited in the preamble partly inadmissible and partly unfounded.

It must be noted that the present case highlights the precarious financial situation of some municipalities, which, it should be recalled, are indicated in the Constitution as components of the Republic endowed with autonomy, including financial autonomy (articles 114 and 119 of the Constitution), with the consequent necessity that they be provided with adequate resources to guarantee – also from the perspective of correct planning over an adequate time frame – the exercise of the functions they are mandatorily called upon to perform (ex multis, Judgments No. 29 of 2023, No. 10 of 2016, and No. 188 of 2015). Such functions require adequate resources, related not only to the population size but also to the extent of the municipal territory.

Considering all the above, no new arguments have emerged capable of altering the conclusions already reached by this Court in the aforementioned Judgment No. 91 of 2025, published subsequent to the filing of the order submitted for the present review.

5.1.– The questions concerning art. 261, paragraph 4, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities must therefore be declared inadmissible, as irrelevant, since this provision – which concerns the case where the Ministry of the Interior, in the event of denial of approval of the balanced budget proposal, formally requests the local authority to submit, within a further peremptory deadline of forty-five days, a new budget proposal capable of removing the causes that prevented a favorable opinion from the Commission for Local Authority Finance – does not apply in the proceedings a quo, which do not concern the indicated eventuality.

5.2.– The questions concerning art. 259, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities are also inadmissible due to an erroneous interpretative premise, as, although the peremptory nature of the deadline contained in the aforementioned provision was challenged by the referring judge, the entire order referred to the different norm governing the consequences of failing to comply with the peremptory deadline (contained in art. 262, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities), indicating as a constitutionally adequate solution the possibility of granting, in case of failure to comply with the peremptory deadlines for the approval of the budget forecast, an additional deadline not exceeding 20 days to the defaulting municipal council (art. 141, paragraph 2, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities).

5.3.– The questions relating to art. 262, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities, insofar as it provides that non-compliance with the peremptory deadlines constitutes the case described in art. 141, paragraph 1, letter a), of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities (dissolution for acts contrary to the Constitution or for serious and persistent violations of law, as well as for serious reasons of public order) rather than art. 141, paragraph 1, letter c) (dissolution for failure to approve the budget), raised in reference to articles 3, 5, 51, 97, and 114 of the Constitution, must be declared unfounded.

As this Court already observed in Judgment No. 91 of 2025, the legislator's choice to equate the failure to approve the rebalancing budget proposal in a financially distressed entity with the cases provided for by letter a) of paragraph 1 of art. 141 of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities is not unreasonable, considering that "the resolution of financial distress represents the consequence of a long and persistent violation of constitutional principles and state norms that require local authorities to maintain balanced budgets, through sound, responsible, and transparent management of public finances, forecasts which, moreover, apply to all subjects who are part of the enlarged public finance (ex multis, Judgments No. 184 of 2022, No. 246 of 2021, No. 80 of 2021, No. 115 of 2020, No. 49 of 2018, No. 228 of 2017, No. 184 of 2016)".

This Court has specified that the electoral mandate presupposes as an essential requirement the punctual and correct drafting and management of the budget according to the standards of art. 97, first paragraph, of the Constitution, according to which public administrations ensure the balance of budgets and the sustainability of public debt. In this sense, the dissolution of the municipal council constitutes a "long-standing and fundamental rule of budget law, as instrumental to the effectiveness of primary electoral mandate fulfilments" (Judgment No. 228 of 2017).

Furthermore, art. 259, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities provides the incumbent administration that has already led the entity to financial distress with a further opportunity to construct a rebalancing budget proposal to demonstrate its capacity to administer public affairs, an opportunity necessarily constrained by time limits to avoid further prejudice to the entity's finances. To this end, the appointment of an extraordinary liquidation body is provided for, which manages the entire passive and active mass generated by the entity before the declaration of financial distress, so that the remaining administration can/must draft a rebalancing budget proposal in compliance with the provisions of articles 249 to 251 of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities. Failure to comply with the deadlines, established as peremptory for the completion of this final administrative act, confirms the incapacity of the incumbent municipal council to approve a rebalancing budget proposal. Thus, the legislator's choice to provide for its inevitable dissolution cannot be considered manifestly unreasonable per se.

Likewise unfounded are the questions concerning the unreasonable disparity of treatment regarding the different regulation provided in case of failure to approve budgets, or failure to adopt the ordinary instruments provided for to remedy situations of temporary imbalance of public finances (art. 193 of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities), because, in the cases typified under letter c) of paragraph 1 of art. 141 and art. 193 of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities, the dissolution of the Municipal or Provincial Council that has not approved the budget forecast within the time limits may be preceded by a further formal notice for a period not exceeding 20 days to allow the entity to comply (art. 141, paragraph 2, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities), without prejudice to the fact that the dissolution scenario is, moreover, subject to the assessment of the Ministry of the Interior.

This Court has observed that, for the reasons set forth above, the situation of an administration of a municipality in bonis is different from that of an entity that has already resolved on financial distress, and therefore no grounds are found to deem the principle of equality violated: the differentiated treatment of ontologically different situations represents the natural consequence of this principle.

The questions raised in reference to the principle of good governance of the public administration are also unfounded, as the rules that establish the obligations and set the time limits for the administration in a financially distressed entity are functional to restoring balance to the community's budget.

The current regulatory and constitutional framework allows, in fact, addressing pathological situations of local finance not only when they are attributable to socio-economic characteristics of the community and the territory, through the activation of solidarity mechanisms under art. 119, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution (therefore, in cases of structural deficits), but also when they are due to organizational criticalities, for the significance and contrast of which Legislative Decree-Law of October 10, 2012, no. 174 (Urgent provisions concerning the finance and functioning of territorial bodies, as well as further provisions in favor of the earthquake-stricken areas in May 2012), converted, with amendments, into Law of December 7, 2012, no. 213, and the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities provide specific and coordinated instruments to prevent situations of progressive degradation of local finance (ex multis, Judgments No. 34 of 2021 and No. 18 of 2019). Among these instruments, the provision that stipulates, as an ultima ratio, the dissolution of the Municipal Council is aimed at safeguarding the interest protected by art. 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution, because a Municipal Council incapable of preparing a balanced budget proposal does not guarantee the good governance of the public administration (Judgment No. 91 of 2025).

Finally, the principles aimed at protecting local autonomies, as well as the principle of the electoral mandate and the right of every citizen to access elected office, are not infringed.

This Court has already observed, in fact, that the rule contained in art. 262, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities represents the first in a series of measures aimed at restoring the financial balance of the financially distressed local entity, including: the dissolution of the municipal council, the activation of substitute powers with the appointment of a prefectural commissioner, and the holding of new elections. In this context, the challenged normative fragment is evidently pre-ordered to ensure the protection of the balance of overall public finances.

Nor is the right to passive suffrage affirmed by art. 51 of the Constitution infringed, as the functional nature of the budget forecast and the subsequent budget, the failure to approve which the legal system connects to the lapse of the democratic representation's consensus, lies in ensuring the members of the community knowledge of the ways in which public resources are utilized and the evaluation of the results achieved by those holding the electoral mandate (ex plurimis, Judgment No. 18 of 2019).

It must therefore be reiterated that the negligence leading to the financial distress of local entities interrupts the relationship of trust characterizing the electoral mandate and democratic representation, which, conversely, the challenged provision aims to protect.

6.– In conclusion, the challenges under examination, by not introducing new arguments compared to those already reviewed by this Court in the aforementioned Judgment No. 91 of 2025, nor adding new aspects to those already examined, must be declared inadmissible, concerning articles 259, paragraph 1, and 261, paragraph 4, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities, and unfounded, concerning art. 262, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Text on Local Authorities.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1) declares inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy of articles 259, paragraph 1, and 261, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree of August 18, 2000, no. 267 (Consolidated Text of Laws on the Organization of Local Authorities), raised, in reference to articles 3, 5, 51, 97, and 114 of the Constitution, by the Regional Administrative Court for Campania, First Section, with the order indicated in the preamble;

2) declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of art. 262, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 267 of 2000, raised, in reference to articles 3, 5, 51, 97, and 114 of the Constitution, by the Regional Administrative Court for Campania, First Section, with the order indicated in the preamble.

Decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on January 13, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Angelo BUSCEMA, Rapporteur

Valeria EMMA, Registrar

Filed with the Registry on February 19, 2026