ORDER NO. 67
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
ORDER
in the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 7, paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 6 April 1984 (Implementing provisions of the special statute for the Trentino-Alto Adige Region concerning the establishment of the Regional Administrative Court of Trento and the Autonomous Section of Bolzano), initiated by the Council of State, First Section, in the proceedings between A. A., the Municipality of Badia, and A. V., with an opinion dated 9 December 2025, registered as No. 261 of the register of orders for 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, No. 3, First Special Series, of the year 2026.
Having regard to the act of appearance of A. V., as well as the act of intervention of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano;
Having regard to the motion for the scheduling of the chambers hearing for the decision on the admissibility of the intervention filed by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano;
Having heard the Reporting Judge Maria Alessandra Sandulli at the chambers hearing of 13 April 2026;
Having deliberated in the chambers hearing of 13 April 2026.
Noting that the Council of State, First Section, by way of an opinion dated 9 December 2025, registered as No. 261 of the register of orders for 2025, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 90 of Presidential Decree No. 670 of 31 August 1972 (Approval of the consolidated text of constitutional laws concerning the special statute for Trentino-Alto Adige) and Articles 3, paragraph 1, 5, 24, paragraph 1, and 87, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, in relation to Article 7, paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 6 April 1984 (Implementing provisions of the special statute for the Trentino-Alto Adige Region concerning the establishment of the Regional Administrative Court of Trento and the Autonomous Section of Bolzano), which states that "[i]n matters within the competence of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano, an extraordinary appeal to the President of the Republic is not permitted”;
that the constitutional questions were referred while issuing the opinion preparatory to the decision on the extraordinary appeal to the President of the Republic, as the Council of State was seized with an extraordinary appeal brought by A. A. for the annulment of a building permit issued by the Municipality of Badia (BZ) in favor of A. V.;
that A. V., an opposing party in the proceedings a quo, appeared in the present proceedings, requesting that the raised questions of constitutional legitimacy be dismissed as inadmissible and ill-founded;
that, by an "Act of intervention with submissions and conclusions” filed on 10 February 2026, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, although not a party to the proceedings a quo, intervened in the present case, requesting, as a preliminary matter, that its intervention be declared admissible and, if necessary, to schedule "in advance and separately the sole issue concerning the admissibility of the intervention provided for by Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Supplementary Rules for those intervening pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the same Rules, requested by a motion filed concurrently”;
that, by the same act, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano requested that the raised constitutional questions be declared inadmissible and ill-founded, arguing, among other points, that the exclusion of the extraordinary appeal established by the challenged provision is an expression of the autonomy statutorily recognized to the Province itself, whereby the administrative justice system within the provincial territory is configured as a "special and essentially closed system,” which mandates the guarantees for the protection of linguistic minorities established by Articles 90, 91, 92, and 93 of the special statute;
that, concurrently with the act of intervention, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano also filed a "motion for the advance and separate scheduling of the sole issue concerning the admissibility of the intervention,” in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court, for the eventuality that an intervener pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, "intends to inspect the case files,” clarifying, however, that it submitted the motion merely as a precautionary measure, considering itself entitled to intervene pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2, of the same Supplementary Rules;
that, in view of the chambers hearing scheduled for the proceedings regarding the admissibility of the intervention, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano filed a brief pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules, reiterating and further specifying the grounds for the admissibility of its intervention.
Considering that, on other occasions, this Court has already affirmed that the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, even when it is not a party to the proceedings a quo, is entitled to intervene in incidental proceedings where "the constitutionality of implementing provisions of the special statute is in dispute, which concern an aspect of provincial autonomy and are adopted according to the procedure referred to in Article 107 of said statute, which involves the Province itself,” as a "legally relevant interest” in the outcome of the constitutional proceedings must be deemed to exist on the part of the Province (Order No. 479 of 2002; similarly, Judgment No. 372 of 2002; Order No. 277 of 1997);
that the intervention of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (as well as that of the Autonomous Province of Trento) has also been admitted in principal proceedings, on the grounds that "the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano have full standing to appear in court, regardless of the notification of the appeal (performed only with respect to the Province of Trento), as the question of constitutional legitimacy (brought by way of action) concerns an implementing provision of the special statute specifically regarding powers constitutionally guaranteed to the Autonomous Provinces themselves [...]” and that "in proceedings of constitutional legitimacy by way of action against implementing provisions of the special statute for Trentino-Alto Adige, involving legally relevant interests of the Autonomous Province and the sphere of its competence (in this case public waters and related profiles), the Autonomous Provinces cannot be considered outsiders” but rather "entitled to appear before the Court, taking into account the special joint procedure provided for by Article 107 of the special statute (see Order No. 277 of 1997)” (Judgment No. 353 of 2001; order attached to Judgment No. 192 of 2024, which, in recalling the conclusions reached for the intervention of the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano, admitted the intervention of certain ordinary regions in the constitutional proceedings regarding a law concerning the overall structure of the regional system);
that, under the aforementioned conditions, the admissibility of the intervention of the Autonomous Provinces is consistent with the established case law of this Court on the intervention of third parties, according to which the intervention of subjects extrinsic to the main proceedings is admissible only when "it concerns third parties holding a qualified interest, directly and immediately related to the substantive relationship deduced in the proceedings (Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules) and not merely regulated, like any other, by the challenged provision (ex plurimis, orders attached to judgments No. 66 of 2025, No. 140, No. 39 and No. 22 of 2024, No. 206 of 2019)” (Judgment No. 199 of 2025), or when "an eventual ruling upholding the questions of constitutional legitimacy would have an immediate impact on the subjective position” of the intervener (Judgment No. 98 of 2019), by reason of specific powers connected to the challenged provision (judgments No. 98 of 2019 and No. 180 of 2018)” (Order No. 85 of 2025);
that, in the present case, the specified conditions for admissibility are satisfied, as the constitutional proceedings concern a specific implementing provision of the special statute, relevant to the sphere of autonomy of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, because the challenged provision, as also indicated in the recitals of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984, was approved according to the special procedure referred to in Article 107 of the aforementioned special statute, whereby the statutory implementing provisions are issued "after hearing a joint commission composed of twelve members, six of whom represent the State, two the Regional Council, two the Provincial Council of Trento, and two that of Bolzano. Three members must belong to the German or Ladin linguistic group”;
that, consequently, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano holds a legally relevant interest in the outcome of the present proceedings, given that a potential ruling of constitutional illegitimacy would affect the condition of specialty contemplated by the challenged provision, precluding its operation even in the relationship deduced in the proceedings a quo, which, in the event of the questions being upheld, could be settled through an instrument not currently applicable to disputes falling under the competence of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano;
that, for the aforementioned considerations, the intervention filed by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano must be deemed admissible pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules, with the consequent granting of the motion filed pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1, of the same Supplementary Rules.
Having regard to Articles 4 and 5 of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
on these grounds
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
1) declares the intervention filed by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano admissible;
2) authorizes the intervener to inspect and obtain copies of the procedural files of the present case.
So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 13 April 2026.
Signed:
Giovanni AMOROSO, President
Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Reporting Judge
Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry
Filed in the Registry on 30 April 2026
The anonymized version corresponds, in its text, to the original.