JUDGMENT NO. 93

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 proceedings regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Art. 9, paragraphs 19, letter b), and 26, of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 11 September 2025 (Budget adjustments 2025-2027 and budget variations pursuant to the provisions of Articles 50 and 51 of Legislative Decree No. 118 of 23 June 2011, and subsequent amendments and additions, recognition of off-balance-sheet debts and various provisions), initiated by the President of the Council of Ministers, with a petition notified on 11 November 2025, filed with the registry on 14 November 2025, entered as No. 42 in the registry of petitions for 2025, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, No. 49, first special series, of the year 2025.

Having seen the act of constitution of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia;

having heard the Judge Rapporteur Angelo Buscema at the public hearing on 14 April 2026;

having heard the State Attorney Fabrizio Fedeli for the President of the Council of Ministers, as well as the lawyers Mattia Pani and Angela Serra for the Autonomous Region of Sardinia;

having deliberated in the chambers on 14 April 2026.

Legal Findings of Fact

1.– By a petition notified on 11 November 2025 and filed on 14 November 2025 (reg. pet. no. 42 of 2025), the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutional legitimacy of Art. 9, paragraphs 19, letter b), and 26 of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 11 September 2025 (Budget adjustments 2025-2027 and budget variations pursuant to the provisions of Articles 50 and 51 of Legislative Decree No. 118 of 23 June 2011, and subsequent amendments and additions, recognition of off-balance-sheet debts and various provisions).

1.1.– Art. 9, paragraph 19, letter b), is challenged with reference to Articles 3 and 97, second and fourth paragraphs, of the Constitution, in relation to Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 30 March 2001 (General rules on the organization of employment in public administrations) and Art. 11 of the General Provisions on the Law.

The challenged provision, by amending Sardinia Regional Law No. 14 of 19 May 2025 (Extension of the effectiveness of rankings), introduces an extension of the ranking list approved by Resolution No. 121 of 4 April 2023 of the General Manager of the Regional Emergency and Urgency Agency of Sardinia (AREUS), for the recruitment of full-time and permanent administrative assistants (category C) in the same agency.

According to the petitioner, said ranking list had already expired by the date of entry into force of the regional law, the biennial term provided for by Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 having elapsed, and the extension would therefore apply to an act that is already devoid of legal effect.

The State Attorney’s Office observes that an extension, by its nature, could only apply to acts that are still effective, while it would not be permitted for rankings that have already expired, which would have exhausted their legal effects. This would lead to a violation of the principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactivity of the law, as well as the principle of public competitive examination, as the ordinary method for accessing public employment, as it would allow for the establishment of employment relationships based on a ranking list now devoid of effect.

The challenged provision would therefore be in conflict with Articles 3 and 97, second and fourth paragraphs, of the Constitution, as it would circumvent the temporal limits set by the national legislature to protect the proper functioning and impartiality of the administration.

The violation of Art. 3 of the Constitution alone is also alleged, as the extension would cause an unreasonable disparity of treatment, favoring individuals declared eligible in a selection procedure already concluded, to the detriment of those aspiring to participate in new competitive procedures. According to the petitioner, the regional provision would thus attribute an undue advantage to a limited group of subjects, in violation of the principles of reasonableness and equality that Art. 3 of the Constitution establishes as the foundation of legislative power.

1.2.– The second ground for the petition alleges the constitutional illegitimacy of Art. 9, paragraph 26, of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025, with reference both to Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution, regarding exclusive legislative power in the matter of civil law, in relation to Art. 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, Art. 2, paragraph 3, third and fourth sentences, and Art. 45 of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001, and to Art. 3, letter a), of Constitutional Law No. 3 of 26 February 1948 (Special Statute for Sardinia).

The challenged provision replaces paragraph 2 of Art. 7 of Sardinia Regional Law No. 18 of 2 August 2016 (Social Inclusion Income. Regional Fund for Social Inclusion Income – "Agiudu torrau”) and provides for the allocation to municipalities of a quota equal to 1.5 percent of the annual contribution intended for the social inclusion income (REIS), to cover costs related to the activation of external services for the management of said contribution, or for the coverage of higher costs incurred by the local entity for the payment of incentive salary allowances to internal administration employees tasked in various capacities with the management of the contribution in the relevant territory.

The provision establishes, in particular, that the sums paid to internal personnel are configured as an accessory allowance, to be defined in the payslip according to the regulatory provisions and the forecasts of the National Collective Labor Agreement (CCNL) relating to the local government functions sector (three-year period 2019-2021).

According to the petitioner, this provision, by introducing additional economic treatment in favor of municipal employees, would be in conflict with Art. 2, paragraph 3, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001, which establishes that individual employment relationships of public employees are regulated by collective agreements and that the attribution of economic treatments can occur exclusively through such negotiating instruments.

The challenged provision would also conflict with Art. 45 of the same legislative decree, which entrusts exclusively to collective bargaining the determination of the fundamental and accessory economic treatment of public personnel.

In the opinion of the State Attorney’s Office, Art. 9, paragraph 26, of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025, by directly affecting the remuneration of local government employees, would intervene in the matter of civil law, reserved to the exclusive legislative competence of the State pursuant to Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution.

In particular, given that the public employment relationship is now fully contractualized, the relative discipline – including that concerning remuneration – would fall entirely within the aforementioned matter, with the consequent preclusion for the regional legislature to unilaterally introduce economic treatments, substituting itself for collective bargaining, a necessary and mandatory source of regulation (the judgments of this Court no. 290 of 2012, and no. 339 and no. 7 of 2011 are cited). Nor could one invoke the special autonomy of the Sardinia Region, given that the relative legislative competencies must in any case be exercised in compliance with the fundamental norms of the socio-economic reforms of the Republic, such as the provisions of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001, which – as expressly provided by Art. 1, paragraph 3, of the same decree – constitute fundamental principles pursuant to Art. 117 of the Constitution and fundamental norms of socio-economic reform, binding also for regions with special statutes.

The challenged provision would therefore be in conflict with the interposing norms referred to in Art. 1, paragraph 3, Art. 2, paragraph 3, and Art. 45 of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001, which establish, respectively, that individual employment relationships of public administration employees, including regional and local government ones, are regulated contractually and that the fundamental and accessory economic treatment is defined by collective agreements.

From this perspective, the regional provision would not be limited to allocating financial resources to be destined for collective bargaining, but would unilaterally institute a specific incentive allowance in favor of local government employees in Sardinia, also determining its nature as accessory treatment, thus removing its discipline from the negotiation between the parties authorized according to the canons of collective bargaining, with the consequent alteration of the system of distribution of competencies between legislative and contractual sources.

This would also result in a violation of Art. 3, letter a), of the special statute, as the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, in exercising its competence regarding the organization of offices and the legal and economic status of personnel, would have exceeded the statutory limits, invading the legislative competence reserved to state legislation.

In this regard, the petitioner recalls constitutional jurisprudence according to which the principles set by state law, in the matter of contractualized public employment, constitute private law limits aimed at ensuring the uniformity of fundamental rules throughout the national territory, binding also for regions with special statutes (cited, among others, judgments no. 154 and no. 81 of 2019, no. 234 of 2017, no. 225 and no. 77 of 2013). Within this framework, the discipline of the economic treatment of public employees – including regional and local ones, pursuant to Art. 1, paragraph 2, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 – falling within the matter of "civil law”, would be attributed exclusively to the State, pursuant to Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution (judgments no. 190 of 2022, no. 146, no. 138, and no. 10 of 2019 are cited).

2.– With an act filed on 17 December 2025, the Autonomous Region of Sardinia entered an appearance in the proceedings, asking that the challenges be declared inadmissible and, in any case, unfounded.

2.1.– With regard to the challenge to Art. 9, paragraph 19, letter b), the Autonomous Region of Sardinia contests the premise from which the petitioner moves, namely that the biennial term referred to in Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 is of a mandatory nature, arguing, on the contrary, that it is a general term and one of guidance, and not, instead, mandatory, nor universally applicable. On this point, it recalls constitutional jurisprudence, which recognizes the legislative competence of the regions in the discipline of competitive rankings, as it pertains to aspects attributable to the matter of administrative organization and personnel and, in particular, as regards the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, to what is established by Art. 3, letter a), of the special statute.

The challenge would, moreover, be inadmissible and, in any case, unfounded as it is contradictory because, on one hand, it recognizes regional competence in the discipline of rankings and, on the other, assumes the violation of state norms without confronting the special statute.

The jurisprudence of this Court is recalled according to which the discipline of rankings, as the conclusive provision of public law procedures for access to regional employment, pertains to public-organizational aspects of regional public employment and not to privatized aspects of the relative employment relationship, which are instead traced back to the matter of civil law, of exclusive state legislative competence (judgment no. 41 of 2023).

On the merits, the Autonomous Region of Sardinia highlights that the extension responds to extraordinary needs connected to the health emergency and staff shortages, especially in disadvantaged areas, to ensure the essential levels of assistance. The provision, furthermore, would not derogate from the principle of public competition, as it concerns a ranking formed at the end of a selection procedure, which is, moreover, very recent, nor would it negatively impact proper functioning.

The complaint formulated with reference to Art. 3 of the Constitution would be inadmissible and, in any case, unfounded, as it is formulated in a generic way, with the petitioner not specifying which are the situations allegedly discriminated against.

2.2.– Also regarding the second ground of the petition, the respondent Region argues for the inadmissibility and groundlessness of the challenge.

The challenged Art. 9, paragraph 26, of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025, by providing for the assignment to municipalities of a quota of the REIS, would be limited to allocating resources to personnel tasked in various capacities with the management of the inclusion income, expressly establishing that the definition of the accessory allowance occurs according to the regulatory provisions and the forecasts of the local government functions CCNL 2019-2021. Therefore, Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution would not be violated, since the regional provision would be limited to equipping local entities with resources for the financial coverage of a component of accessory salary, to be managed in compliance with the overall expenditure limit for personnel provided for by state legislation and by the norms on collective bargaining.

As for the statutory parameter evoked by the petitioner, the Region highlights that the regulatory intervention is located within the scope of its own legislative competencies in the matter of administrative organization, without directly affecting the employment relationship and without substituting collective bargaining. The provision would not, in fact, determine a structural increase in economic treatment, but would allow, on a temporary basis, the use of additional resources within the scope of existing contractual institutions, consistently with the local government functions CCNL 2019-2021.

In conclusion, the Region excludes any invasion of state legislative competence in the matter of civil law and believes that the challenged discipline is in compliance with constitutional and statutory parameters.

3.– Near the public hearing, the petitioner filed an illustrative brief aimed at countering the arguments made by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia and insisting on the acceptance of the petition.

Legal Reasoning

4.– With the petition indicated in the heading (reg. pet. no. 42 of 2025), the President of the Council of Ministers promoted questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Art. 9, paragraphs 19, letter b), and 26, of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025.

4.1.– With the first ground of the petition, the constitutional illegitimacy of Art. 9, paragraph 19, letter b), is alleged, with reference to Articles 3 and 97, second and fourth paragraphs, of the Constitution, in relation to Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 and Art. 11 of the General Provisions on the Law.

The challenged provision establishes the extension, until 31 December 2026, of the effectiveness of the ranking list for the competition for the full-time and permanent recruitment of administrative assistants (category C), approved by resolution of the General Manager of AREUS on 4 April 2023.

The State Attorney’s Office observes that the extension can only be ordered for acts that are still effective and not, as in the present case, when the biennial term provided for by Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 has already elapsed, so that the regional intervention in question would conflict, in addition to the aforementioned state provision, also with Art. 11 of the General Provisions on the Law, for the profiles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity of the law. Such conflict would determine the violation of Articles 3 and 97, second and fourth paragraphs, of the Constitution as it would circumvent the temporal limits placed for the protection of proper functioning, impartiality, and the principle of public competition. The petitioner also laments the violation of Art. 3 of the Constitution alone, as the challenged provision would determine an unreasonable disparity of treatment between subjects declared eligible in the extended ranking list and subjects eligible in other ranking lists whose validity has not been extended, as well as with respect to those aspiring to the call for new competitive procedures.

4.2.– With the second ground of the petition, the President of the Council of Ministers alleges the constitutional illegitimacy of Art. 9, paragraph 26, of the same regional law, with reference to Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution, regarding the matter of civil law, in relation to Art. 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, Art. 2, paragraph 3, third and fourth sentences, and Art. 45 of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001, as well as Art. 3, letter a), of the special statute.

The challenged provision provides for the allocation to municipalities of a quota equal to 1.5 percent of the annual contribution for social inclusion income to be destined for external subjects, to cover the costs of managing the REIS service, or for the remuneration of internal personnel tasked with the same service, providing – in the latter case – for the payment of an accessory allowance.

According to the petitioner, this provision would conflict with the discipline of contractualized public employment, which reserves the regulation of economic treatment to collective bargaining. In fact, the regional provision, through the aforementioned accessory allowance, would affect the remuneration of local government employees, invading the matter of civil law, reserved to the exclusive legislative competence of the State.

Such intervention would not be justified even in light of the special autonomy, as the provisions of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 would constitute fundamental principles and norms of socio-economic reform, binding also for regions with special statutes.

The challenged provision, by unilaterally providing for accessory economic treatment in favor of local government employees in Sardinia, would remove the discipline from the negotiation between the parties, authorized according to the canons of collective bargaining.

This would also result in a violation of Art. 3, letter a), of the special statute, as the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, in exercising its primary competence in the matter of the organization of offices and the legal and economic status of personnel, would have exceeded the same statutory limits, invading the legislative competence reserved to state legislation.

5.– The Autonomous Region of Sardinia objects, first of all, to the inadmissibility of the questions of constitutional legitimacy formulated with the first ground of the petition.

5.1.– The challenge promoted against Art. 9, paragraph 19, letter b), of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025, with reference to Articles 3 and 97, second and fourth paragraphs, of the Constitution, in relation to Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 and Art. 11 of the General Provisions on the Law, would be inadmissible as the petitioner, despite recognizing regional legislative competence in the discipline of competitive rankings, would complain about the violation of constitutional parameters and the conflict with the state norms evoked as interposing parameters, without making any reference to the special statute, which attributes to the Region itself the legislative competence in the matter of administrative organization and personnel.

The objection is unfounded.

The state complaint, in fact, does not call into question the regional power regarding the discipline of competitive procedures, but contests its coherence with the principles referred to in Articles 3 and 97, second and fourth paragraphs, of the Constitution, also through the interposing legislation referred to in Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 and Art. 11 of the General Provisions on the Law – the observance of which also refers to regional competence – with regard to the circumvention of the temporal limits of validity of competitive rankings set by the national legislature for the protection of the proper functioning and impartiality of the administration.

5.2.– The respondent Region also objects to the inadmissibility of the question of constitutional legitimacy promoted with reference to Art. 3 of the Constitution, as it is formulated in a generic way, with the petitioner not specifying which are the situations allegedly discriminated against.

The objection is well-founded.

According to constant constitutional jurisprudence, "the need for adequate motivation as a basis for the challenge arises in rigorous terms in proceedings proposed in the main, in which the petitioner has the burden not only of identifying the challenged provisions and the constitutional parameters of which it denounces the violation, but also of supporting the reasons for the alleged conflict with clear, complete, and sufficiently articulated arguments (ex multis, judgments no. 125 of 2023, no. 265, no. 259, and no. 135 of 2022, no. 170 of 2021, and no. 279 of 2020)” (judgment no. 169 of 2024).

In this case, the indicated requirements are not met.

The petitioner limits itself to stating apodictically the existence of a disparity of treatment, without demonstrating it. It is, in fact, not specified which are the analogous ranking lists and who are the subjects who are in an identical legal position within AREUS, or in other branches of the regional administration who are discriminated against by the challenged provision.

The grievance, therefore, lacks adequate motivation and does not satisfy the requirement of specific and appropriate argumentation requested, with the consequent inadmissibility of the question in part qua.

6.– The respondent Region also objects to the inadmissibility of the second ground of the petition.

6.1.– The question of constitutional legitimacy promoted with reference to Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution, civil law, would be inadmissible as it would expressly emerge from reading the normative text that the challenged provision would be limited to providing financial coverage, leaving to collective bargaining the discipline of allowances.

The objection cannot be accepted.

The petitioner’s arguments – according to which the Region’s intervention was not limited to providing financial coverage for an accessory emolument of local personnel, but introduced an allowance that constitutes an incentive in favor of local government employees and determined its nature as accessory treatment – are sufficient to identify the ratio of the challenge.

6.2.– In the opinion of the Region, the challenge would also be inadmissible due to the generic nature, insufficiency, and inadequacy of the motivation, as it would not appropriately indicate the reasons for which there would be a conflict with the evoked parameters despite the express reference, contained in the provision, to the legislation and the forecasts of the relevant collective agreement.

This objection must also be dismissed.

According to constant constitutional jurisprudence, in proceedings in the main, the petitioner has the burden of identifying the challenged provisions, the evoked constitutional parameters, and of providing a motivation that allows the reasons for the denounced conflict to be grasped (in this sense, ex plurimis, judgment no. 26 of 2025). In the present case, these requirements are met.

The petitioner has, in fact, punctually identified the provision subject to challenge, indicated the constitutional parameter allegedly violated (Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l, of the Constitution, regarding the matter "civil law”); recalled the interposing norms (Art. 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, Art. 2, paragraph 3, third and fourth sentences, and Art. 45 of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001); illustrated, albeit synthetically, the reasons for which the regional provision would determine a direct impact on the economic treatment of personnel, invading the sphere reserved to collective bargaining.

Nor can it be considered that the presence, in the challenged provision, of a reference to the forecasts of the collective agreement is in itself suitable to make the challenge generic or apodictic, as this aspect pertains to the merits of the question and not to its admissibility.

It must, therefore, be concluded that the second ground of the petition satisfies the minimum requirements of clarity, completeness, and specificity required by constitutional jurisprudence, with the consequent rejection of the objection of inadmissibility.

7.– With reference to the merits of the first ground of the petition, in order to define the thema decidendum, it is necessary to recall the normative context in which the challenged provision is inserted.

Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025 introduces, in Art. 9, paragraph 19, letter b), an amendment to Sardinia Regional Law No. 14 of 2025, inserting, in Art. 1, letter b-bis), with which the ranking list, approved on 4 April 2023, relative to the competition for the full-time and permanent recruitment of administrative assistants (category C) called by AREUS, is extended until 31 December 2026. The provision was introduced as an amendment by the Regional Council.

The extension, according to what also emerges from the technical report, allows the recruitment of personnel who are immediately operational in order to deal with organizational shortages, particularly in the most remote areas, and is inserted in the framework of the objectives of strengthening territorial health assistance, consistently with the directives of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR).

As for the state normative framework, Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 establishes a general rule on the duration of competitive ranking lists, fixing it at two years from the date of their approval, without prejudice to the possibility of differentiated disciplines.

The Autonomous Region of Sardinia, however, has not issued any specific discipline.

8.– Before addressing the merits of the questions, it is useful to reiterate the constant orientation of this Court according to which legislative power regarding competitive ranking lists falls within the residual legislative competence of the regions, as it is attributable to the matter of administrative organization.

It was in fact stated that "[t]he regulation of access to public employment by competition is referable to the scope of exclusive state competence, sanctioned by Art. 117, second paragraph, letter g), of the Constitution, only with regard to competitions called by state administrations and national public bodies” (judgment no. 380 of 2004, point 3.2. of the Legal Reasoning). As for regional public employment, it must be traced back to civil law, of exclusive state competence, only "for the privatized profiles of the relationship”, pertaining to the employment relationship already established, whereas "the ‘public-organizational’ profiles fall within the regional administrative organization and order, and therefore belong to the residual legislative competence of the Region (ex multis, judgments no. 63 of 2012, no. 339 and no. 7 of 2011, no. 233 of 2006, no. 2 of 2004)” (judgment no. 149 of 2012, point 4.2. of the Legal Reasoning). These public-organizational profiles, precisely because they are indissolubly connected with the implementation of the principles enunciated by Articles 51 and 97 of the Constitution, are withdrawn "from the incidence of the privatization of work in public administrations, which refers to the discipline of the relationship already established” (judgment no. 380 of 2004, point 3.1. of the Legal Reasoning). This Court is constant in asserting that the regulation of the methods of access to regional public work – as it is attributable to the matter of the administrative organization of the Regions and regional public bodies – is precluded to the State (all the more so through detailed provisions) and belongs to the residual competence of the Regions (judgment no. 2 of 2004), in compliance with constitutional limits (judgment no. 380 of 2004, point 3.2. of the Legal Reasoning). Attributable to the residual legislative competence in the matter of the administrative order and organization of the Regions are, in particular, public law competitive procedures for access to regional employment (judgments no. 191 of 2017, point 5.4. of the Legal Reasoning, and no. 251 of 2016, point 4.2.1. of the Legal Reasoning) and the regulation of ranking lists, which represent the conclusive provision of selection procedures (judgment no. 241 of 2018, point 4. of the Legal Reasoning)” (judgment no. 126 of 2020).

9.– This being said, the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 9, paragraph 19, letter b), of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025, promoted with reference to Articles 3 and 97, second and fourth paragraphs, of the Constitution, in relation to Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001 and Art. 11 of the General Provisions on the Law, are not well-founded.

9.1.– The challenged provision concerns, as seen, the temporal effectiveness of ranking lists of public selection procedures, pertaining to a moment prior to that of the inception of the employment relationship.

The discipline of ranking lists always falls within the regional statutory competence (Art. 3, letter a) provided that, as also affirmed by constitutional jurisprudence, it is exercised "in compliance with the constitutional canons of proper functioning and impartiality of the administration” (judgment no. 77 of 2020) and the general principle of equality (Art. 3 of the Constitution).

From this perspective, it was also observed that "the discretion of the regional legislator should not go so far as to prejudice the pressing urgency of professional updating” (again judgment no. 77 of 2020), as "[t]he provision of temporal limits of effectiveness of ranking lists of selection procedures for access to employment in public administration is aimed at preventing that, by making distant the selection that gave rise to them (judgment no. 3 of 2013, point 5.4. of the Legal Reasoning), the need for professional updating of those who access public employment is prejudiced, made even more pressing today by the frequent regulatory innovations that require the modification of the same methods of selection of candidates for such employment. It is, therefore, a ratio intimately correlated with the implementation of the principle of the proper functioning of the administration” (judgment no. 241 of 2018).

Such a problem is not, however, recognizable in the present proceedings. The extension ("until 31 December 2026”, as established by Art. 1, paragraph 1, of Sardinia Regional Law No. 14 of 2025) of the temporal effectiveness of the ranking list that expired in April 2025 is not such as to make the selection that gave rise to it so distant in time as to lead to the belief that the professional content of the tasks typical of the profile to be acquired has changed, or to prejudice the need for professional updating of those who access employment in AREUS. Rather, it allows the Region to remedy, with timeliness and without having to bear further burdens connected to the completion of new competitive procedures, its own staff shortages, so as to be able to ensure the administrative support necessary for the provision of services corresponding to appropriate quality standards in the health sector and to guarantee the fundamental right of the individual to health (again, in this sense, judgment no. 241 of 2018).

This Court has, moreover, affirmed that "[t]he scrolling of ranking lists, initially identified as an exceptional instrument, has lost such characteristic over time, to be configured, on many occasions, as an alternative solution to the calling of new competitions [...] provided that it is in compliance with the constitutional canons of proper functioning and impartiality of the administration” (judgment no. 77 of 2020; in the same sense, judgments no. 267 of 2022 and no. 273 of 2020). These are, therefore, the parameters with respect to which it is necessary to evaluate the reasonableness of the regional regulatory intervention.

9.2.– From this perspective, the alleged violation of the principle of proper functioning referred to in Art. 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution must be scrutinized in light of the peculiarities that distinguish the extension of the ranking list in question and the purposes that the challenged provision pursues, as well as the overall context in which it is placed.

In the present case, the extension of the ranking list for the recruitment of personnel to be employed in AREUS – an agency whose purpose is to carry out emergency activities to guarantee the public interest in health – concerns the necessary support for health activity, and the ratio of the provision is linked to the need to promptly acquire administrative personnel to be assigned to health agencies due to the critical issues and dysfunctions detected especially in the most remote areas of the Island, exposed to an endemic shortage of personnel to be allocated in aid of the health service (in this sense, judgments no. 184 and no. 177 of 2025).

It is, therefore, a limited extraordinary intervention, aimed at satisfying peculiar needs connected to situations of territorial emergency-urgency of the regional health administration; needs that explain and, together, justify the provision for the extension of the ranking list of a very recent selection procedure, such as that called by AREUS.

Such an extension, among other things, does not have an indiscriminate scope, but is functional to organizing the recruitment of eligible candidates in the most efficient and prompt way, in an area – that of health protection and regional administrative organization – reserved to the autonomy of the Region, in view of the specific purposes identified by the law.

9.3.– Nor is the principle of public competition referred to in Art. 97, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution violated, as the very existence of the ranking list, which is rather recent, presupposes that ordinary selection procedures aimed at identifying the most qualified subjects to fill the vacancies had been previously carried out.

The legislative competence recognized to the regional legislator allows it to intervene with efficiency and reasonableness in the management of ranking lists, also taking into account the position of the eligible candidates. In fact, as affirmed by this Court, "[a]n impartial recruitment of eligible candidates included in ranking lists does not conflict with Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution, precisely because it constitutes one of the possible expressions of the proper functioning and impartiality of the administration, in the exercise of regional legislative competence” (judgment no. 77 of 2020).

Ultimately, the extension of the ranking list in question, evaluated with reference to the job positions that come into play, allows for ensuring the recruitment of subjects in possession of the professional skills required to satisfy the regional needs linked to the health emergency, so as to be able to guarantee uniform essential levels of assistance in the territory.

10.– The second ground of the petition, pertaining to the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 9, paragraph 26, of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025, promoted with reference to Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution, regarding the matter of civil law, in relation to Art. 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, Art. 2, paragraph 3, and Art. 45 of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001, as well as Art. 3, letter a), of the special statute of the Sardinia Region, is not well-founded.

Art. 9, paragraph 26, of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025 assigns to municipalities, as entities managing the social inclusion income, a quota of said annual contribution to cover the costs concerning the activation of external services for the management of the measure or to provide for the coverage of higher costs of local entities for the payment of incentive salary allowances in favor of internal employees tasked, in various capacities, with the management of the REIS.

This emolument, directed at remunerating internal personnel, is configured by the challenged provision as an accessory allowance, to be defined concretely according to regulatory provisions and according to the forecasts of the national local government functions collective agreement.

This Court has constantly affirmed that the exclusive legislative competence of the State in the matter "civil law”, in which the discipline of the economic treatment of contractualized public employees falls, does not exclude that the regional legislator can affect the financial and organizational context within which bargaining takes place, provided that it does not go so far as to directly determine the content of the economic treatment (judgments no. 20 of 2021 and no. 199 of 2020).

It was, in particular, affirmed that "[f]ollowing the privatization of the public employment relationship, the discipline of the employment relationship in the employ of public administrations, including regional ones, is governed by the provisions of the civil code and by collective bargaining, an ‘instrument of guarantee of equality of treatment of workers’ (judgment no. 178 of 2015, point 17 of the Legal Reasoning), to which the same state law refers (judgment no. 196 of 2018, point 3.1. of the Legal Reasoning)” (judgment no. 20 of 2021).

To this matter, however, the discipline now submitted to the review of this Court is not attributable, as the challenged provision does not intervene on the instrument of regulation of the economic treatment of regional employees, entrusted to collective bargaining (judgment no. 199 of 2020, point 9.2. of the Legal Reasoning), and does not substitute for the negotiation between the parties, which represents the essential source of discipline of the employment relationship.

The regional provision, in fact, allocates financial resources to the payment of an accessory emolument, leaving to collective bargaining the definition of the "remunerative treatment of public employees, also in the accessory component, in compliance with the mandatory prescriptions of the law and expenditure constraints” (judgment no. 20 of 2021).

This Court, with judgment no. 155 of 2023, decided a question similar to the one in question, recognizing the constitutional legitimacy of provisions of the Sicilian Region pertaining to an allowance for operators of the regional health service engaged in the epidemiological emergency from COVID-19.

Also in that case, the regional law did not establish the direct attribution of an allowance to operators engaged in the COVID-19 emergency, but authorized the agencies to liquidate it, subject to agreement between the Regional Health Department and the labor union representatives.

In the aforementioned judgment, this Court affirmed that the regional provisions were located, "‘in a phase, that pertaining to the determination of available resources, distinct and upstream with respect to that aimed at the concrete determination of the accessory economic treatment of personnel, reserved to collective bargaining, falling within the matter of civil law’ (thus judgment no. 155 of 2022)” (judgment no. 155 of 2023).

In the present proceedings, the challenged provision, similarly, does not directly attribute the allowance, but is limited to identifying a quota of the annual resources of the social inclusion income and allowing its use also for incentive purposes connected to the management of the service "to be defined in the payslip according to regulatory provisions and according to the forecasts of the national local government functions collective agreement”.

The qualification of the emolument as an "accessory allowance” does not assume, in this case, immediate mandatory value, but resolves itself into a reference to the system of sources that discipline the economic treatment of personnel, with the competence of collective bargaining remaining unimpaired. From this, it follows that the challenged regional provision does not directly affect the employment relationship, of exclusive state competence, but operates upstream, on the level of the planning and allocation of financial resources, in function of the financing and improvement of administrative efficiency in the management of the social inclusion service.

There is, therefore, no conflict with Art. 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, Art. 2, paragraph 3, third and fourth sentences, and Art. 45 of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001, evoked by the petitioner as interposing parameters.

Such intervention falls, in fact, within the regional legislative competence in the matter of "organization of the offices and administrative bodies of the Region and legal and economic status of personnel” referred to in Art. 3, letter a), of the statute of autonomy and does not determine any undue invasion of the sphere reserved to the State in the matter of civil law referred to in Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution.

FOR THESE REASONS

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1) declares inadmissible the question of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 9, paragraph 19, letter b), of the law of the Sardinia Region of 11 September 2025, No. 24 (Budget adjustments 2025-2027 and budget variations pursuant to the provisions of Articles 50 and 51 of Legislative Decree No. 118 of 23 June 2011, and subsequent amendments and additions, recognition of off-balance-sheet debts and various provisions), promoted, with reference to Art. 3 of the Constitution, by the President of the Council of Ministers with the petition indicated in the heading;

2) declares not well-founded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 9, paragraph 19, letter b), of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025, promoted, with reference to Articles 3 and 97, second and fourth paragraphs, of the Constitution, in relation to Art. 35, paragraph 5-ter, of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 30 March 2001 (General rules on the organization of employment in public administrations) and Art. 11 of the General Provisions on the Law, by the President of the Council of Ministers with the petition indicated in the heading;

3) declares not well-founded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 9, paragraph 26, of Sardinia Regional Law No. 24 of 2025, promoted, with reference to Art. 117, second paragraph, letter l), of the Constitution, in relation to Art. 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, Art. 2, paragraph 3, third and fourth sentences, and Art. 45 of Leg. Decree No. 165 of 2001, and to Art. 3, letter a), of Constitutional Law No. 3 of 26 February 1948 (Special Statute for Sardinia), by the President of the Council of Ministers with the petition indicated in the heading.

Decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 14 April 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Angelo BUSCEMA, Rapporteur

Igor DI BERNARDINI, Chancellor

Filed in the Registry on 28 May 2026