JUDGMENT NO. 42

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

JUDGMENT

in the constitutional legitimacy proceeding concerning Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Law of the Sicilian Region of June 5, 2025, no. 23 (Provisions on Healthcare Matters), initiated by the President of the Council of Ministers with an appeal notified on August 7, 2025, filed with the Registry on the same date, registered under no. 27 of the appeals register for 2025, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 37, Special Series, of 2025.

Having seen the statement of constitution of the Sicilian Region;

Having heard Judge Rapporteur Luca Antonini at the public hearing of February 10, 2026;

Having heard the attorneys Nicola Dumas and Enrico Pistone Nascone for the Sicilian Region, as well as the State Attorney Sergio Fiorentino for the President of the Council of Ministers;

Deliberated in the council chamber on February 11, 2026.

Facts Considered

1.– With an appeal notified on August 7, 2025, and filed on the same date (Reg. App. no. 27 of 2025), the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the Advocate General’s Office, initiated proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Law of the Sicilian Region of June 5, 2025, no. 23 (Provisions on Healthcare Matters), with reference to Articles 2, 3, 19, 21, 51, first paragraph, 97, and 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution, as well as Article 17 of Constitutional Law no. 2 of February 26, 1948 (Conversion into Constitutional Law of the Statute of the Sicilian Region, approved by Royal Legislative Decree no. 455 of May 15, 1946).

The aforementioned Article 2, in paragraph 1, stipulates that, in order to implement Law no. 194 of May 22, 1978 (Provisions for the Social Protection of Motherhood and Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy), the health and hospital authorities of the Regional Health Service (SSR) "shall establish, where not already present, functional areas dedicated to voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP) within the complex operational units of gynaecology and obstetrics."

Paragraph 2 delegates to a decree of the Regional Councillor for Health the definition of guidelines concerning the functioning and organization of such areas.

The challenged paragraph 3 provides that the health and hospital authorities shall: a) "within the ordinary recruitment selection procedures already established in the three-year personnel needs plans, staff the functional areas referred to in paragraph 1 with suitable non-conscientious objector personnel" (first sentence); b) if, as a consequence "of the termination of employment relationships or subsequent objection by personnel recruited pursuant to this paragraph, they remain without non-objector personnel, [...] they shall initiate suitable procedures to reintegrate the functional areas with non-objector personnel, within the limits of the authorized staffing levels, within 120 days from the date of submission of the objection declaration or termination of the employment relationship" (second sentence).

2.– The appellant submits that, "based on a commonly shared opinion, the right to conscientious objection must be ascribed constitutional rank, based on what was affirmed in Judgment no. 467 of 1991, in which the Court – in that case, concerning military service – recognized it as an inviolable right of man, founded on freedom of conscience and, specifically, on Articles 2, 19, and 21 of the Constitution."

It further specifies that the challenged provision – by prescribing that health and hospital authorities, within the ordinary recruitment selection procedures, staff the functional areas dedicated to VTP with non-objector personnel and, should they subsequently lack such personnel, initiate procedures to reintegrate them – would delineate reserved competitive selection procedures and interfere with the requirements for access to public employment.

It then recalls the established constitutional jurisprudence which, on the basis of Articles 3, 51, first paragraph, and 97 of the Constitution, has deemed selectively reserved procedures unconstitutional, as they unreasonably exclude or reduce the possibility of external access, violating the public nature of the competition (referencing, among others, Judgments no. 227 of 2013, no. 225 and no. 100 of 2010, no. 293 of 2009), and result in an undue privilege in favour of persons belonging to the category to whom access to the public employment in question is reserved.

2.1.– In particular, the Advocate General’s Office focuses on the circumstance that Article 9 of Law no. 194 of 1978, after providing that health personnel and auxiliary staff who have raised conscientious objection are not required to participate in VTP procedures and preparatory activities (paragraph 1), imposes on healthcare facilities the obligation to ensure these services anyway and on the Regions the duty to monitor the implementation of this obligation "also through staff mobility" (paragraph 4).

The latter provision, according to the State defense, "does not provide for exceptions to the general principles described regarding access to public employment, much less the initiation of competitions reserved for non-objector personnel, as a means to ensure the performance of voluntary termination of pregnancy interventions and preparatory procedures, but refers to different methods, such as staff mobility procedures."

3.– In light of the foregoing, with the first ground of appeal, the appellant contests Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regional Law no. 23 of 2025, deeming it prejudicial to Article 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution, in relation to the matter of civil law, as well as Article 17 of the special statute which, in regulating the concurrent legislative power of the Sicilian Region, requires compliance with "the general principles and interests that inform State legislation."

In reference to these violations, the following constitute interposed parameters, expressive of as many fundamental principles: a) Article 35, paragraph 3, letter b), of Legislative Decree no. 165 of March 30, 2001 (General provisions on the organization of employment relationships dependent on public administrations), according to which "recruitment procedures in public administrations" must ensure, among other things, the "adoption of objective and transparent mechanisms, suitable for verifying the possession of the aptitude and professional requirements required in relation to the position to be filled"; b) Article 5, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree no. 487 of May 9, 1994 (Regulation containing provisions on access to public employment and the methods for conducting competitions, sole competitions, and other forms of hiring in public employment), according to which, "[i]n public competitions, post reservations in favour of particular categories of citizens, however named, may not in total exceed half of the posts offered for competition"; c) the aforementioned Article 9, fourth paragraph, of Law no. 194 of 1978.

On this point, the Advocate General’s Office concludes by specifying that "even in the hypothetical event that one were to imagine – for a moment – the necessity to derogate from the aforementioned principles through a limitation in access to competitions, such restriction should find its justifying source in a State law, which alone could justify the limitations in question provided they are linked to objective needs and in any case aimed at excluding differential treatment (the current case law appears consolidated in this sense, since Tar Liguria, judgment of July 3, 1980, no. 396)."

3.1.– With the second ground of appeal, the appellant argues that Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regional Law no. 23 of 2025 breaches Articles 3, 51, first paragraph, and 97 of the Constitution.

The "reserved competitive formula" prescribed by the regional legislature negatively impacts the possibility for all potential candidates to participate in the competitive selection procedures, with a violation of the principle of equality, since aspirants would be excluded from the selections due to their personal and moral convictions, which moreover could not even be objectively verified.

Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regional Law no. 23 of 2025 also prejudices the good administration, as it provides for an admission requirement to the competition that is independent of the professional capabilities and, therefore, of the merit of the candidates, precluding the "optimal selection" of human resources.

The challenged legislative provision is therefore found to be unreasonable and disproportionate.

The Advocate General’s Office emphasizes in this regard that, pursuant to Article 9, second paragraph, of Law no. 194 of 1978, the right to conscientious objection may be exercised at any time during the employment relationship, so that the winners of the competitions outlined by the Sicilian legislature might raise an objection even after hiring: these competitions would consequently not be suitable for guaranteeing VTP services.

At the same time, the State defense adds, Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regional Law no. 23 of 2025 dictates a regulation that is not strictly necessary for this latter purpose, since this could be achieved through measures less prejudicial to the principle of public competition and the right to raise conscientious objection, specifically through staff mobility, as already indicated, or forms of flexible work.

3.2.– With the third ground of appeal, the appellant asserts the violation of Articles 2, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, based on arguments partly overlapping with those just set forth.

After reiterating that freedom of conscience finds its foundation, according to this Court, in the invoked constitutional parameters, the Advocate General’s Office observes that the challenged provision discriminates against persons based on their personal convictions.

"Allowing for reserved competitive procedures for non-objector doctors and health personnel would mean [...] putting individuals before the – in some ways dramatic – alternative of having to prioritize their personal needs and aspirations and life goals over the reasons of their conscience, undermining its related freedom, protected by the combined provisions of the cited articles of the Constitution."

4.– The Sicilian Region constituted itself in the proceedings, requesting that the issues raised by the President of the Council of Ministers be declared inadmissible or, in any case, unfounded.

4.1.– The appeal would be inadmissible because the challenges formulated rely on an erroneous interpretative premise, based "on a distorted reading of the regional provision."

According to the respondent, the denounced "selective and discriminatory effects" would be "non-existent," since the challenged provision does not prescribe reserved competitions. More specifically, it merely imposes on health authorities the obligation to ensure the functionality of VTP areas, but the competitions remain open to objectors as well, as the eventual "qualification as 'non-objector'" would not be relevant in the admission phase of the competitions themselves, but only in the subsequent "functional assignment" phase of the winners.

In other words, Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regional Law no. 23 of 2025 does not introduce "any selective exclusion," as it "operates only on an organizational level, for the assignment of personnel to operational units," and access to competitive procedures remains "unchanged."

4.2.– On the merits, the respondent maintains that the challenged provision falls within the legislative competence in the matter of "health protection," being functional, in compliance with Article 9, fourth paragraph, of Law no. 194 of 1978, to guarantee VTP interventions.

Furthermore, the alleged violation of Articles 3, 51, first paragraph, and 97 of the Constitution is unsubstantiated, since the regulation subject to the present proceeding, as clarified regarding the inadmissibility of the appeal, does not exclude any applicant from participating in competitions for reasons related to their ethical convictions and therefore does not compromise the "principle of meritocracy."

5.– Four written opinions from *amici curiae* were submitted, pursuant to Article 6 of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court, all admitted by Presidential Decree of December 15, 2025.

5.1.– In its opinion, the Italian Association of Gynaecologists for the Application of Law no. 194/78 ODV (LAIGA) recalls the decisions of September 10, 2013, made public on March 10, 2014 (International Planned Parenthood Federation – European Network - IPPFEN v. Italy), and of October 12, 2015, made public on April 11, 2016 (Italian General Confederation of Labour - CGIL v. Italy), with which the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) ascertained the violation of the right to health and the prohibition of discrimination against women because adequate access to VTP was not guaranteed in Italy.

5.2.– Similarly, the CGIL, in its opinion, particularly refers to the second decision mentioned above, with which the ECSR reiterated its previous conclusions and found the right to work and the right to dignity at work of non-objector doctors to be violated as well.

5.3.– The opinion submitted by the "Rosario Livatino" Study Center specifically emphasizes individual freedom of conscience, which the provision subject to this proceeding allegedly infringes upon, exerting undue moral pressure on those intending to participate in the competitive procedures provided for therein.

5.4.– Finally, the opinion submitted jointly by the Italian Pro-Life Movement aps - Federation of Life Movements and Life Assistance Centers of Italy, the Sicilian Regional Federation for Life ODV, the Committee for the Subsidiary and Shared Public Agenda "Shout it from the rooftops" (Mt. 10:27), the Association of Catholic Doctors of Italy (AMCI), and the Forum of Socio-Health Associations insists on the principle of equal access to public offices, on public competition as a selection method also aimed at ensuring the choice of the "best professionals," and on the compression of freedom of conscience resulting from the challenged provision.

6.– Shortly before the hearing, the appellant filed an explanatory brief aimed at refuting the arguments put forth by the Sicilian Region.

The Advocate General’s Office observes, in particular, that the interpretation provided by the respondent of the challenged provision would deprive it of innovative content, as the obligation to ensure VTP interventions already derives from Article 9, fourth paragraph, of Law no. 194 of 1978.

7.– The Sicilian Region also filed, out of time, an explanatory brief, insisting on the declaration of inadmissibility and, in any case, of non-fondation of the appeal, "if deemed necessary" through a judgment of rejection based on interpretation.

In Law Considered

8.– With the appeal indicated in the heading (Reg. App. no. 27 of 2025), the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the Advocate General’s Office, challenged Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regional Law no. 23 of 2025 of the Sicilian Region.

9.– The aforementioned Article 2, after providing in paragraph 1 that the health and hospital authorities of the Regional Health Service "shall establish, where not already present, functional areas dedicated to voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP) within the complex operational units of gynaecology and obstetrics," establishes in the challenged paragraph 3 that such authorities shall: a) "within the ordinary recruitment selection procedures already established in the three-year personnel needs plans, staff the functional areas referred to in paragraph 1 with suitable non-conscientious objector personnel" (first sentence); b) if, "as a consequence of the termination of employment relationships or subsequent objection by personnel recruited pursuant to this paragraph, they remain without non-objector personnel, [...] they shall initiate suitable procedures to reintegrate the functional areas with non-objector personnel, within the limits of the authorized staffing levels, within 120 days from the date of submission of the objection declaration or termination of the employment relationship" (second sentence).

10.– In the opinion of the appellant, the challenged provision would delineate competitive selection procedures reserved for non-objectors, excluding them from participation in the competitions contemplated therein and thereby interfering with the requirements for access to public offices.

In doing so, it would violate, firstly, Article 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution, with reference to the matter of "civil law," and, in any case, Article 17 of the special statute which, in light of the overall reasoning of the appeal (among others, Judgment no. 242 of 2022), must be deemed invoked in relation to the matter of "public health" and which requires compliance, in the exercise of this legislative power, "with the general principles and interests that inform State legislation."

More specifically, the challenged provision would conflict with the interposed norms, expressive of as many fundamental principles and which do not tolerate "the initiation of competitions reserved for non-objector personnel," as per Article 35, paragraph 3, letter b), of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001; Article 5, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree no. 487 of 1994; Article 9, fourth paragraph, of Law no. 194 of 1978.

Secondly, Articles 3, 51, first paragraph, and 97 of the Constitution would be violated, because the "reserved competitive formula" prescribed by the Sicilian legislature would discriminate against applicants due to their moral convictions and prejudice the good administration through an exclusionary requirement that disregards professional capabilities and, therefore, the merit of the candidates.

The challenged legislative provision would also prove to be unreasonable and disproportionate, given that the right to conscientious objection can be exercised at any time during the employment relationship. The competitions contemplated therein would consequently not be suitable for guaranteeing VTP services.

Finally, Articles 2, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, to which constitutional jurisprudence attributes the right to conscientious objection, would be infringed, since Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regional Law no. 23 of 2025 discriminates against persons by virtue of their moral convictions and induces individuals to prioritize their personal needs and aspirations and life goals over the reasons for their conscience, thus "undermining its related freedom."

11.– The regional defense raised, preliminarily, an exception of inadmissibility, arguing that the State challenges are based on an erroneous interpretative premise, since, contrary to what the appellant believes, the challenged provision does not provide for reserved competitions, nor does it introduce any special admission requirement for the competitions themselves, which would therefore remain open to the participation of all candidates possessing the prescribed requirements.

The exception must be dismissed, as the incorrectness of the exegetic premise pertains to the merits of the challenges and therefore does not determine their inadmissibility (among others, Judgments no. 59 of 2023, no. 147 and no. 11 of 2022, no. 115 of 2021).

12.– On the merits, the issues are unfounded, to the extent that follows, "as a restrictive interpretation consistent with the Constitution is possible and necessary" (among others, Judgment no. 10 of 2026) of the challenged paragraph 3 of Article 2 of Regional Law no. 23 of 2025.

The numerous challenges by the appellant stem, in fact, from the hermeneutic hypothesis, not shared by the respondent, according to which this provision, by referring to "selection recruitment procedures," would allow regional health and hospital authorities, in order to staff the functional areas dedicated to voluntary termination of pregnancy, to issue competition announcements explicitly reserved only for persons who qualify as non-conscientious objectors.

In this way, the regional norm would make a moral conviction, translated into being a conscientious objector, an exclusionary requirement for participation in a public competition aimed at recruiting health personnel.

This interpretation, which is not contradicted by the preparatory work, could indeed find support in the use of the indicative mood "staff" in the first sentence of the challenged provision, which seems to provide for the hiring of non-objector personnel and therefore refers to recruitment in the selection competition phase, and in the provision of the second sentence, which speaks of personnel "recruited pursuant to this paragraph."

This hermeneutic approach, if it were the only possible one, would place the regional norm in conflict with the fundamental principles regarding health protection, "whose scope coincides with that – likewise concurrent – of which the Sicilian Region is the holder in the matter of 'public health,' pursuant to Article 17 of the special statute" (among others, Judgment no. 76 of 2023), derivable from Article 9 of Law no. 194 of 1978.

12.1.‒ Indeed, this provision establishes that the "health personnel and auxiliary staff are not required to take part in the procedures referred to in Articles 5 and 7 and in the interventions for the termination of pregnancy when they raise conscientious objection, with a prior declaration" (first paragraph, first sentence).

It also provides that conscientious objection must be expressed within one month "from obtaining authorization or hiring in an entity required to provide direct services for the termination of pregnancy or from the stipulation of an agreement with social security bodies that entails the execution of such services" (first paragraph, second sentence), specifying, however, that it can be "proposed even outside the terms referred to in the preceding paragraph" (second paragraph), with the sole limit that in any case "it cannot be invoked by health personnel and auxiliary staff when, given the particularity of the circumstances, their direct intervention is indispensable to save the life of the woman in imminent danger" (fifth paragraph).

In this way, conscientious objection, within Law no. 194 of 1978, has been recognized in very broad terms, to the point of being configured as a simple unilateral declarative act, substantially expressible at any time.

12.2.‒ Article 9 of Law no. 194 of 1978 therefore demonstrates a legislative intent that has strongly valued the constitutional relevance assumed by freedom of conscience, traditionally recognized, since very distant times, as an essential characteristic of the irreducible identity of the human person.

According to the constant jurisprudence of this Court, in fact, "the intimate sphere of individual conscience must be considered as the deepest legal reflection of the universal idea of the dignity of the human person" and represents "a constitutional value so high as to justify the provision of privileged exemptions from the fulfillment of public duties qualified as unrenounceable by the Constitution (so-called conscientious objection)" (Judgment no. 467 of 1991).

This does not mean, however, that this protection of the rights of conscience, which finds its foundation, in addition to Article 21 of the Constitution, also in Article 2 of the Constitution (Judgment no. 271 of 2000), can "be considered unlimited and unconditional" (Judgment no. 43 of 1997): in fact, within the limits strictly necessary for the protection of the underlying public interest of the opposing constitutional duty, it is up to the legislator to "balance it with conflicting duties or assets of constitutional relevance" (again, Judgment no. 467 of 1991), in order to "establish the balance point between individual conscience and the faculties it demands, on the one hand, and the overall, unrenounceable duties of political, economic, and social solidarity that the Constitution (Art. 2) imposes" (again, Judgment no. 43 of 1997).

This being established, it must also be specified that, according to the jurisprudence of this Court, "once the element of conscience has been given a characterizing value to the positive discipline, it cannot then be denied and measures of pressure aimed at provoking the change of convictions and behaviors according to conscience cannot be established" (again, Judgment no. 43 of 1997).

12.3.‒ The challenged provision must therefore be evaluated within the positive framework configured by Article 9 of Law no. 194 of 1978, which, in its fourth paragraph, after providing that "[h]ospital entities and authorized nursing homes are in any case required to ensure the performance of the procedures provided for by Article 7 and the execution of voluntary termination of pregnancy interventions requested in accordance with the methods provided by Articles 5, 7, and 8," does not mention the possibility of calling competitions reserved only for non-conscientious objectors, contemplating instead other solutions to resolve the problem of any insufficiency of non-objector health personnel, particularly by referring to the possibility for the Regions to resort "also" to "staff mobility."

This is aimed at ensuring protection for the woman's right to health, which this Court highlighted in Judgment no. 27 of 1975.

12.3.1.‒ It must be considered that, according to the constant orientation of constitutional jurisprudence, the principle of competition under Article 9, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution constitutes a "direct implementation of Articles 3 and 51 of the Constitution," being aimed at allowing "citizens to access public offices on equal terms" (among others, Judgment no. 40 of 2018), with competitive procedures being aimed at "achieving the broadest possible participation" (Judgment no. 251 of 2017), which is functional to selection based on merit (Judgment no. 57 of 2025).

From this perspective, the faculty, although contemplated by Article 9, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, to introduce exceptions to the rule of public competition "must be strictly limited," so that these exceptions can be "considered legitimate only when they themselves are functional to the good administration and where peculiar and extraordinary public interest needs justifying them occur" (Judgment no. 57 of 2025), always in compliance with the ""limit of the principles of reasonableness and safeguarding the good functioning of the public administration.”" (among others, Judgment no. 145 of 2025).

The initiation of competitions reserved for non-objectors, as correctly noted by the Advocate General’s Office, would therefore constitute a completely exceptional hypothesis within the State legal system.

As such, if Law no. 194 of 1978 had genuinely intended to allow for it, it should, at least, have expressly provided for it.

12.3.2.‒ The consideration that, given the structure of Law no. 194 of 1978 is characterized, as seen, by the strong valorization of conscientious objection – which can be expressed, in essence, at any time during the employment relationship and without any consequence – it would not be possible to achieve, within this regulation, the certainty of achieving, through reserved competitions, the useful result of actually having personnel willing to deal with voluntary termination of pregnancy interventions, because the worker cannot be deprived of the possibility of objection "subsequent" to the establishment of the employment relationship.

12.3.3.‒ Finally, it must be considered that the hypothesis of providing for a reserved competition, under a systematic and evolving reading of Article 9 of Law no. 194 of 1978, does not even appear necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing the execution of voluntary termination of pregnancy interventions.

The aforementioned article, when using the term "also" in reference to mobility in the fourth paragraph, must indeed be read in light of the possibility of using other normatively provided instruments, particularly agreements with other healthcare facilities pursuant to Article 8-quinquies of Legislative Decree no. 502 of December 30, 1992 (Reorganization of the discipline in healthcare matters, pursuant to Article 1 of Law no. 421 of October 23, 1992), as well as agreements with specialist outpatient doctors under Article 8 of the same legislative decree, who establish self-employed professional relationships with the Health Service, characterized by parasubordination.

12.4.– It must therefore be reiterated that, if the interpretation supported by the appellant were the only practicable one, the challenged provision would result in being incompatible with the fundamental principles derivable from the aforementioned Article 9, fourth paragraph, which implicitly exclude the possibility of competitions reserved only for non-objectors.

In conclusion, the challenged provision in any case would not have "limited itself to establishing a detailed regulation" (Judgment no. 438 of 2008), since, given its scope, it would directly establish "fundamental principles, causing a breach of the reserve, established by Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution, for State legislation regarding their determination" (Judgment no. 204 of 2025).

13.– Contrary to the appellant's view, however, a different interpretation of the challenged provision is possible and necessary, oriented towards conformity with the Constitution and which shields it from all the alleged grounds of constitutional illegitimacy.

This is, moreover, the restrictive interpretation supported by the Sicilian Region in its statement of constitution, where it believes that the exegesis from which the appellant proceeds is founded "on a distorted reading of the regional provision."

According to the regional defense, in fact, the "selective and discriminatory effects" would be "non-existent," since the challenged provision does not prescribe reserved competitions for non-objectors.

The regional norm, therefore, would merely impose on health authorities the obligation to ensure the functionality of VTP areas, but the competitions would certainly remain open to objectors as well, as the eventual "qualification as 'non-objector'" would not be relevant *upstream*, in the admission phase of the competitions themselves, but only *downstream*, in the subsequent "functional assignment" of the winners.

In other words, Article 2, paragraph 3, of Regional Law no. 23 of 2025 does not introduce "any selective exclusion," as it "operates only on an organizational level, for the assignment of personnel to operational units," and access to competitive procedures remains "unchanged."

13.1.– In effect, this interpretation finds no obstacle in the text of Article 2 of the challenged regional law, which, in light of the provision of its paragraph 1, can be considered as aimed at establishing the obligation for the health and hospital authorities of the Regional Health Service to establish, "where not already present, functional areas dedicated to voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP) within the complex operational units of gynaecology and obstetrics."

The reference, in the first sentence of the subsequent paragraph 3, to "ordinary recruitment selection procedures," in order to staff these areas with non-objector personnel, must then be interpreted restrictively, completely excluding, as asserted by the Sicilian Region, competitions reserved only for non-objectors.

Likewise, the second sentence of the same paragraph, referring, in the event of a shortage of "non-objector personnel," to the need to initiate "procedures suitable to reintegrate the functional areas" of such personnel, must be interpreted with the same exclusion and as referring to the "traditional" forms allowed by the legal system, which moreover do not necessarily affect staffing levels – which the provision itself refers to as a limit – as in the case of agreements.

14.– With the challenged provision interpreted in this manner, the issues raised by the State appeal are unfounded.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares unfounded, in the sense specified in the reasoning, the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Law of the Sicilian Region of June 5, 2025, no. 23 (Provisions on Healthcare Matters), raised, with reference to Articles 2, 3, 19, 21, 51, first paragraph, 97, and 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution, as well as Article 17 of Constitutional Law no. 2 of February 26, 1948 (Conversion into Constitutional Law of the Statute of the Sicilian Region, approved by Royal Legislative Decree no. 455 of May 15, 1946), by the President of the Council of Ministers with the appeal indicated in the heading.

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

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Luca ANTONINI, Rapporteur

Igor DI BERNARDINI, Registrar

Filed with the Registry on March 27, 2026