JUDGMENT NO. 36

YEAR 2026

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

is 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, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the constitutional legitimacy review concerning Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Law of the Campania Region of May 29, 2025, no. 6, entitled "Amendments to the Regional Law of August 7, 2014, no. 16 (Measures for the revival and development of the regional economy as well as for regulatory and organizational purposes),” initiated by the President of the Council of Ministers with an appeal served on July 25, 2025, filed with the Registry on the same date, registered under no. 24 of the appeals registry for 2025, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 33, first special series, of the year 2025.

Having heard Judge Rapporteur Marco D’Alberti in the public hearing of February 11, 2026;

Having heard the State Attorney Massimo Di Benedetto for the President of the Council of Ministers;

Deliberated in the council chamber of February 11, 2026.

Having Considered the Facts

1.– With an appeal filed on July 25, 2025, and registered under no. 24 of the appeals registry for 2025, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, challenged Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Law of the Campania Region of May 29, 2025, no. 6, entitled "Amendments to the Regional Law of August 7, 2014, no. 16 (Measures for the revival and development of the regional economy as well as for regulatory and organizational purposes).”

This provision amends the regulation concerning ineligibility for the offices of President of the Regional Executive Council and Regional Councillor of Campania, affecting the ground for ineligibility provided for "mayors of municipalities within the regional territory” under Article 1, paragraph 212, letter i), of the Law of the Campania Region of August 7, 2014, no. 16, entitled "Measures for the revival and development of the regional economy as well as for regulatory and organizational purposes (Connected to the Regional Stability Law 2014),” as amended by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter a), of the Law of the Campania Region of November 11, 2024, no. 17, entitled "Amendments to the Regional Law of March 27, 2009, no. 4 (Electoral Law) and to the Regional Law of August 7, 2014, no. 16 (Measures for the revival and development of the regional economy as well as for regulatory and organizational purposes).”

In particular, the challenged provision amended the subsequent paragraph 213-bis of Article 1 of the Regional Law no. 16 of 2014 (as introduced by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b), of the aforementioned Regional Law no. 17 of 2024), which addresses the removal of the aforementioned ground for ineligibility.

The text of paragraph 213-bis prior to the challenged provision was as follows: "The ground for ineligibility provided for subjects referred to in letter i) shall not take effect if the functions exercised by the interested party ceased at least ninety days before the natural expiry date of the five-year term of the Regional Council. In case of early termination of the Regional Council, the ground for ineligibility shall not take effect if the functions exercised by the interested party ceased within seven days following the date of the election call.”

The challenged Article 1, paragraph 1, of Regional Law no. 6 of 2025 substituted the wording corresponding to the first sentence of paragraph 213-bis with the following: "The ground for ineligibility provided for subjects referred to in letter i) shall not take effect if the functions exercised by the interested party ceased at least sixty days before the natural expiry date of the five-year term of the Regional Council, the natural expiry date of the five-year term of the Regional Council being understood as the date of the vote for the renewal of the Regional Council itself in the preceding five-year term, pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1, of Law no. 165 of July 2, 2004.”

1.1.– The President of the Council of Ministers alleges a violation, primarily, of Article 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to the interposed provision of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b), of Law no. 165 of July 2, 2004 (Provisions for the implementation of Article 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution), which provides for the ineffectiveness of grounds for ineligibility "where the interested parties cease from the activities or functions that determine the ineligibility, no later than the day set for the submission of candidacies or another term established in advance otherwise.”

Essentially, the violation of the State’s concurrent legislative competence in electoral matters at the regional level is alleged, of which the invoked interposed norm expresses a fundamental principle.

According to the appellant, the challenged provision, despite mitigating the aspects of unreasonableness and disproportion that characterized the previous text of paragraph 213-bis (which, as seen, established the longer term of ninety days before the cessation of the Regional Council), has not eliminated them, despite the formal commitment undertaken in this regard by the Region during discussions with the Government, a commitment that had induced the latter not to challenge the previous text.

The amendment, in fact, would still result in "detrimental repercussions on the completion of the term of office of the governing bodies of smaller municipalities (i.e., with a population equal to or less than 5,000 inhabitants),” considering that the affected mayors would have to resign well before being certain of their candidacy. This would result in a discriminatory effect against the mayors of the aforementioned municipalities and a prejudice to the proper functioning of the relative municipal administrations, which would remain without governing bodies for an unreasonably long time.

1.2.– Secondly, Articles 3 and 51 of the Constitution are allegedly violated, due to an infringement of the principles of equality and reasonableness, as well as the right to be elected, which constitute non-surpassable limits to regional legislative power.

In fact, there is an unjustified disparity of treatment towards the mayors of the Campanian municipalities, as they are subjected to a more restrictive ineligibility regime than that established by state law for the mayors of other regions.

The excessive anticipation of the resignation deadline would also cause a surreptitious reduction in the pool of subjects participating in the elections, effectively excluding many incumbent mayors, without any modulation or distinction of the relative municipalities based on demographics. This reveals the unreasonableness of the balance, struck by the regional legislator, between the interests at stake, resulting in the sacrifice of the interests of the local governing bodies to complete their natural term and ensure administrative continuity, as well as those of the local communities to have stable governance conforming to electoral outcomes for the entire duration of the term, in addition to the interests of potential candidates and potential voters in an "enrichment of the electoral competition, and thus to the advantage of the political institutions themselves.”

1.3.– Finally, the appellant observes that in the event the promoted questions are upheld, the deadline for resignation should be the "day set for the submission of candidacies,” pursuant to the aforementioned Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b), of Law no. 165 of 2004, in line with the recent Judgment no. 131 of 2025, with which this Court upheld analogous questions concerning a legislative provision of the Puglia Region.

2.– The Campania Region did not appear in the proceedings.

3.– On August 25, 2025, the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) filed an opinion as amicus curiae in support of the appeal, which was admitted by presidential decree of December 5, 2025.

Considered in Law

4.– With the appeal indicated in the heading (reg. ric. no. 24 of 2025), the President of the Council of Ministers challenged Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Regional Law no. 6 of 2025, which amends the regulation concerning ineligibility for the offices of President of the Regional Executive Council and Regional Councillor of Campania, affecting the ground for ineligibility provided for "mayors of municipalities within the regional territory” under Article 1, paragraph 212, letter i), of the Regional Law no. 16 of 2014, as amended by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter a), of the Regional Law no. 17 of 2024.

In particular, the challenged provision amended paragraph 213-bis of Article 1 of the Regional Law no. 16 of 2014 (as introduced by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b), of the aforementioned Regional Law no. 17 of 2024), substituting the wording corresponding to the first sentence of said paragraph with the following: "The ground for ineligibility provided for subjects referred to in letter i) shall not take effect if the functions exercised by the interested party ceased at least sixty days before the natural expiry date of the five-year term of the Regional Council, the natural expiry date of the five-year term of the Regional Council being understood as the date of the vote for the renewal of the Regional Council itself in the preceding five-year term, pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1, of Law no. 165 of July 2, 2004.”

As a result of the amendment, therefore, the mayor of a municipality within the territory of Campania wishing to stand for President of the Regional Executive Council or Regional Councillor would have to resign from office at least sixty days before the physiological five-year term of the Regional Council expires, instead of the "ninety days” before the same expiry date established by the provision in the text preceding the amendment.

The second sentence of the same paragraph 213-bis was not amended; therefore, it remains established that "[i]n case of early termination of the Regional Council, the ground for ineligibility shall not take effect if the functions exercised by the interested party ceased within seven days following the date of the election call.”

4.1.– According to the appellant, Article 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution would be violated, primarily, in relation to the interposed provision of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b), of Law no. 165 of 2004, which provides for the ineffectiveness of grounds for ineligibility where the interested parties cease from their activities or functions "no later than the day set for the submission of candidacies or another term established in advance otherwise.”

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Regional Law no. 6 of 2025 would lead to "detrimental repercussions on the completion of the term of office of the governing bodies of smaller municipalities (i.e., with a population equal to or less than 5,000 inhabitants),” considering that the affected mayors would have to resign much earlier than having certainty of their new candidacy, and would result in a discriminatory effect against the mayors of the aforementioned municipalities and a prejudice to the proper functioning of the relative municipal administrations, which would remain without governing bodies for an unreasonably long time.

Articles 3 and 51 of the Constitution would be violated, secondly, due to an infringement of the principles of equality and reasonableness and proportionality, as well as the right to be elected, as the excessive anticipation of the resignation deadline would lead to an unjustified disparity of treatment for the mayors of the Campanian municipalities compared to the mayors of other regions, as well as a surreptitious reduction in the pool of subjects participating in the elections, effectively excluding many incumbent mayors, without any modulation or distinction of the relative municipalities based on demographics, thus revealing the unreasonableness of the balance of interests at stake struck by the regional legislator.

5.– Preliminarily, no relevance can be attributed, as observed by the State Attorney’s Office, to the failure to challenge the previous provision of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b), of the Regional Law no. 17 of 2024, which, in introducing paragraph 213-bis into Article 1 of the Regional Law no. 16 of 2014, had established for the resignation of mayors the longer term of ninety days before the natural expiry of the Regional Council, thus presenting, potentially, a content more detrimental than that challenged in this proceeding by the appellant.

According to established constitutional jurisprudence, this circumstance does not preclude the examination of the questions raised by the President of the Council of Ministers in this proceeding, given the non-applicability of the acquiescence doctrine in main proceedings, as the challenged norm, even if preceded by another of identical content (or potentially more detrimental) and not challenged, still has the effect of reiterating the harm that gives rise to the interest in appealing (among many others, Judgments no. 22 of 2025, no. 151 of 2024, and no. 56 of 2020).

6.– On the merits, the questions are unfounded.

7.– Regarding the first question, by which the violation of Article 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution is alleged, it is noted that this parameter was reformed by Article 2 of the Constitutional Law of November 22, 1999, no. 1 (Provisions concerning the direct election of the President of the Regional Executive Council and the statutory autonomy of the Regions), according to which the aforementioned new first paragraph now provides that "[t]he system of election and the cases of ineligibility and incompatibility of the President and other members of the Regional Executive Council as well as of the regional councillors are regulated by Regional Law within the limits of the fundamental principles established by State Law, which also establishes the term of office of the elected bodies.”

Following the reform, therefore, "Article 122 of the Constitution entrusts the regulation of cases of ineligibility and incompatibility of regional councillors to the concurrent legislative competence of the ordinary Regions, which exercise it in compliance with the fundamental principles of the matter set out by State legislation” (among many others, Judgment no. 134 of 2018).

In implementation of the constitutional reform, the State adopted Law no. 165 of 2004, "with which the State framework regulation concerning, among other things, grounds for ineligibility and incompatibility was established,” leaving "ample room, except for certain more specific hypotheses, for a structuring, by the regional legislator, of the concrete relevant factual situations: these, as the ordinary Regions legislate, are intended to apply in place of what was provided for by Law no. 154 of 1981, which continues to be effective in the meantime, by virtue of the principle of continuity of the legal system (Orders no. 223 of 2003 and no. 383 of 2002)” (Judgment no. 143 of 2010, cited by Judgment no. 134 of 2018).

Article 2, paragraph 1, of Law no. 165 of 2004 laid down the fundamental principles with which the regions must comply in regulating, by law, the cases of ineligibility, specifically identified under Article 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution, providing, in letter b), as mentioned, for the "ineffectiveness of the causes of ineligibility where the interested parties cease from the activities or functions that determine the ineligibility, no later than the day set for the submission of candidacies or another term established in advance otherwise, without prejudice to the protection of the right to retain the job, public or private, of the candidate.”

In the opinion of the appellant, the challenged regional provision would conflict with this fundamental principle established by the State legislator in the matter of shared competence under Article 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

However, Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b), of Law no. 165 of 2004 does not prohibit the regions from establishing a deadline earlier than that for the submission of candidacies, as it alternatively allows the ineffectiveness of the grounds for ineligibility to derive from the cessation of activities or functions "no later than […] another term established in advance otherwise” by the Regions themselves.

The interposed State norm, ultimately, expresses the fundamental principle that the removal of grounds for ineligibility, due to cessation from the activities or functions that determine them, cannot in any case take place after the day set for the submission of candidacies.

This choice is consistent with the underlying reasons for providing for grounds of ineligibility, which aim to avert conditioning of the freedom to vote or violations of equal opportunities among candidates, and conforms to the constant orientation of this Court, according to which "the legislator, in its discretion, may variously determine, provided it is according to rational criteria, the date by which the cessation of the ground for ineligibility must occur […]; but in no case may this date be later than that prescribed for the acceptance of candidacy, which represents the first act of exercise of the passive right to elect” (Judgment no. 46 of 1969, cited by Judgments no. 56 of 2017 and no. 309 of 1991).

The same fundamental principle invoked by the appellant, therefore, reserves to the discretion of the regional legislator the power to establish a term prior to that for the submission of candidacies, which represents the insurmountable time limit, beyond which the grounds for ineligibility can no longer be removed.

This discretion may be exercised in various ways. Legislative experience reveals the methods usually employed: an earlier term counted backwards from the date set for the submission of candidacies (a variable date, which in turn depends on the date identified for the elections) or counted backwards from another *dies a quo*, identified (as in this case) as the five-year expiry date of the regional council, an expiry date which depends on the date of the last elections.

The determination of the extent of the temporal anticipation is also left to the discretion of the regional legislator. It is true that the latter, in identifying "another term established in advance otherwise,” must still resort to rational criteria, but the review, under this profile, must be conducted based not on the titles of shared legislative competence under Article 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution, but on the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, which come into play in the examination of the second question, which raises the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 51 of the Constitution.

8.– As just recalled, the second question jointly invokes Articles 3 and 51 of the Constitution, for infringement of the principles of equality and reasonableness and proportionality, as well as the right to be elected, in that the excessive anticipation of the resignation deadline would lead to an unjustified disparity of treatment for the mayors of the Campanian municipalities compared to the mayors of other regions, as well as a surreptitious reduction in the pool of subjects participating in the elections, effectively excluding many incumbent mayors, without any modulation or distinction of the relative municipalities based on demographics, thus revealing the unreasonableness of the balance of interests at stake struck by the regional legislator.

The appellant’s grievances that suggest "detrimental repercussions on the completion of the term of office of the governing bodies of smaller municipalities (i.e., with a population equal to or less than 5,000 inhabitants),” due to the fact that the affected mayors would have to resign well before being certain of their candidacy, are also relevant to this question, although formally related to the violation of Article 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

8.1.– First of all, the alleged violation of the principle of equality is not present.

The provision of an earlier deadline compared to that to which the mayors of municipalities included in other regions are subject, pursuant to their respective regulations on the removal of the ground for ineligibility, is not, in itself, contrary to the principle invoked. The Campania Region acted within the scope of the concurrent legislative competence attributed to it in matters of regional elections. This competence includes the power to establish "otherwise,” in place of the day set for the submission of candidacies, "another term established in advance” for the cessation of grounds for ineligibility, in compliance with the fundamental principle of the matter under Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b), of Law no. 165 of 2004, so it is sufficient to note that the very recognition of this competence implies the possibility, legitimate under the constitutional system, of a regulation different from that in force in other parts of the national territory.

8.2.– Secondly, the appellant’s assertion that a mayor interested in running for election is unreasonably required to renounce their office without certainty of inclusion in the electoral lists is not shared.

On this point, Judgment no. 131 of 2025 should be mentioned, where this Court, citing its established case law on the matter, ruled out that the risk of resigning the office "in the dark” is detrimental to the passive right to elect of the interested parties, as it is a risk "inherent in the system, which does not allow the interested party to have, before ceasing office, ‘the certainty of the effective inclusion of their name in the provincial list that will subsequently be submitted’.”

8.3.– The other reasons put forward by the appellant also mirror those already examined by this Court.

They express a unified complaint of unreasonableness, as the regional legislator allegedly failed to adequately balance the different interests at stake, all of constitutional relevance: on the one hand, the interest that the removal of the ground for ineligibility is regulated in a way that ensures, in suitable timeframes, the effective cessation of the office that may disrupt or condition the electoral competition; on the other hand, the interest of local communities in ensuring administrative continuity and stability, considering that the resignation of mayors leads to the dissolution of the relative councils and the appointment of a commissioner, pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 267 of August 18, 2000 (Consolidated Text of Laws on the Organization of Local Authorities).

Judgment no. 131 of 2025, when assessing the same complaint, first specified that, "[a]ccording to established constitutional jurisprudence, ‘in the presence of an issue concerning the balance between two rights, the review of reasonableness of legislative choices utilizes the proportionality test, which requires assessing whether the norm under review, with the measure and application methods established, is necessary and suitable for achieving legitimately pursued objectives, in that, among several appropriate measures, it prescribes the one that is less restrictive of the rights in comparison and establishes burdens not disproportionate to the pursuit of said objectives (ex plurimis, Judgments no. 260 of 2021, no. 20 of 2019, and no. 137 of 2018)” (Judgment no. 88 of 2023, cited by Judgment no. 184 of 2023).”

Secondly, it found that the provision then under review, Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Law of the Puglia Region of February 9, 2005, no. 2 (Rules for the election of the Regional Council and the President of the Regional Executive Council), as substituted by Article 219 of the Law of the Puglia Region of December 31, 2024, no. 42, titled "Provisions for the formation of the 2025 budget forecast and the 2025-2027 multi-year budget of the Puglia Region (Regional Stability Law 2025),” which provided for the resignation deadline of one hundred and twenty days before the natural expiry of the Regional Council, failed the aforementioned proportionality test.

This Court, still in the same Judgment no. 131 of 2025, recognized the disproportion of the regulation, and therefore its unreasonableness, in the "considerable anticipation,” with respect to the day set for the submission of candidacies, of the earlier deadline otherwise established by the Apulian legislator, "along with the general provision of its scope of application,” that is, "also and above all” for its "applicability to mayors of all Apulian municipalities, without any distinction” based on minimum population thresholds.

More precisely, the aforementioned Judgment no. 131 of 2025 considered that the measure fell among those most restrictive of the interest in the continuity and stability of local government action, contrasted with the interest in ensuring the effective removal of the ground for ineligibility, to protect the *par condicio* of candidates and the overall genuineness of the vote, "without such greater sacrifice [being] mitigated, as in analogous provisions found in the legal system, either by limiting ineligibility to municipalities with a population exceeding certain thresholds or, in any case, by setting resignation deadlines significantly reduced compared to that of one hundred and twenty days before the expiry of the regional council.”

In this context, it must therefore be verified whether the fact that the deadline established by the challenged provision is sixty days before the expiry of the Regional Council, equal to one-third of the period of one hundred and twenty days set by the Apulian regional provision whose unconstitutionality has already been ascertained by this Court, has a predominant relevance.

The verification confirms this hypothesis and supports the non-fondness of the question.

The frequently cited Judgment no. 131 of 2025, in fact, took as a paradigm of proportionality, among the "other regional regulations [that] provide for a much shorter resignation period,” precisely the case of the sixty-day term provided for by Article 1, paragraph 213-bis, of the Regional Law no. 16 of 2014 (as amended by Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Regional Law no. 6 of 2025) of Campania.

The same judgment evidently referred to the same case when, noting the disproportion of the Apulian measure, it stated that the greater sacrifice imposed by it on the interest in the continuity and stability of local government action was not mitigated, "in any case, by setting resignation deadlines significantly reduced compared to that of one hundred and twenty days before the expiry of the regional council.”

The *ratio decidendi* underlying Judgment no. 131 of 2025 thus allows for a positive assessment of the constitutional compatibility of the setting back of the deadline established by the challenged provision, as it is "much shorter” than that already deemed excessive by this Court, irrespective of the applicability of the measure to the mayors of all municipalities in the Region, without demographic distinctions.

Consequently, the Campanian legislator, by adopting a term for the cessation of functions prior to the day set for the submission of candidacies, in the exercise of its concurrent legislative competence in matters of regional elections, has struck a balance of interests that has not resulted in an unreasonable and disproportionate regulation.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares the questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Law of the Campania Region of May 29, 2025, no. 6, entitled "Amendments to the Regional Law of August 7, 2014, no. 16 (Measures for the revival and development of the regional economy as well as for regulatory and organizational purposes),” raised, with reference to Articles 3, 51, and 122, first paragraph, of the Constitution, by the President of the Council of Ministers with the appeal indicated in the heading, to be unfounded.

Decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on February 11, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Marco D'ALBERTI, Rapporteur

Valeria EMMA, Registrar

Filed in the Registry on March 20, 2026