JUDGMENT NO. 97

YEAR 2026

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

Justices: 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 delivered the following

JUDGMENT

in the proceedings regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Article 34, paragraph 1, and, in the alternative, of the subsequent paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 25 July 1998 (Consolidated Act of the provisions concerning immigration and regulations on the status of aliens), initiated by the Ordinary Court of Milan, sitting as a labour court, in the proceedings between D.W.N. K. and A. M. and the Lombardy Region and the Ministry of Health, by referral order of 8 September 2025, registered as no. 216 of the 2025 register of orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 46, first special series, of the year 2025.

Having considered the statement of appearance of D.W.N. K., as well as the intervention statement of the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard in public hearing on 14 April 2026 the Reporting Justice Luca Antonini;

having heard counsel Alberto Guariso for D.W.N. K., as well as State Attorney Davide Giovanni Pintus for the President of the Council of Ministers;

having deliberated in the council chamber on 14 April 2026.

Legal Findings

1.– By referral order of 8 September 2025 (reg. ord. no. 216 of 2025), the Ordinary Court of Milan, sitting as a labour court, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy, primarily, concerning Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 25 July 1998 (Consolidated Act of the provisions concerning immigration and regulations on the status of aliens), and, in the alternative, concerning paragraph 3 of the same Article 34, in reference to Articles 3, 32, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, the latter in relation to Article 13 of the European Social Charter, adopted in Turin on 18 October 1961 and revised, with annex, in Strasbourg on 3 May 1996, ratified and executed by Law no. 30 of 9 February 1999, and to Articles 4 and 25 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved by the General Assembly on 13 December 2006, ratified and executed by Law no. 18 of 3 March 2009 (Ratification and execution of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with Optional Protocol, made in New York on 13 December 2006 and establishment of the National Observatory on the status of persons with disabilities).

2.– Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 governs compulsory registration with the National Health Service (SSN), providing as follows: "[t]hose subject to compulsory registration with the National Health Service, and who are granted equal treatment and full equality of rights and duties with Italian citizens regarding the obligation to contribute, the assistance provided in Italy by the National Health Service, and its temporal validity, are: a) foreign nationals legally residing who are engaged in regular employment or self-employment activities or are registered in employment lists; b) foreign nationals legally residing or who have requested the renewal of their residence permit, for employment, self-employment, family reasons, asylum, subsidiary protection, special cases, special protection, for medical treatment pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 2, letter d-bis), for asylum application, pending adoption, foster care, for the acquisition of citizenship; b-bis) unaccompanied foreign minors, even pending the issuance of the residence permit, following legal notifications upon their discovery within the national territory."

This provision is challenged insofar as it does not contemplate compulsory and free-of-charge registration with the SSN for foreign nationals holding a residence permit for elective residence, derived from the conversion, due to the subsequently acquired right to a civil disability pension, of a residence permit previously held for employment, self-employment, or family reasons.

2.1.– After establishing, in the subsequent paragraph 2, first sentence, that health assistance is also granted to legally residing dependent family members, the same Article 34, at paragraph 3, challenged in the alternative, regulates voluntary registration with the SSN, in the following terms: a) a foreign national legally residing who does not fall within the categories indicated in the previous paragraphs "is required to insure against the risk of illness, accident, and maternity by stipulating a specific insurance policy with an Italian or foreign insurance institution, valid within the national territory, or by enrolling in the National Health Service, which is also valid for dependent family members" (first sentence); b) "[f]or registration with the National Health Service, a contribution must be paid as a participation in expenses, in a percentage amount equal to that provided for Italian citizens, on the total income earned in the previous year in Italy and abroad" (second sentence); c) "[t]he amount of the contribution is determined by decree of the Minister of Health, in concert with the Minister of the Treasury, Budget and Economic Planning, and cannot be less than 2,000 euros per year" (third sentence).

These provisions are challenged insofar as they provide that foreign nationals holding the aforementioned residence permit for elective residence – derived, as stated, from the conversion due to the acquisition of a civil disability pension – are required to pay, for the purpose of voluntary registration with the SSN, an amount in any case no less than 2,000 euros per year, rather than one commensurate with actual income.

3.– The referring court is called upon to rule on the appeal filed by two non-EU citizens against the Lombardy Region, to ascertain the discriminatory nature of the conduct consisting in denying them mandatory and free registration with the National Health Service under Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, and in subjecting the registration referred to in the subsequent paragraph 3 to the payment of the contribution at the minimum amount of 2,000 euros, rather than in proportion to the income earned.

In particular, the referring court reports that D.W.N. K., an Egyptian citizen, argued in support of the appeal that he held a permit for employment reasons until 2012 and, subsequently, for pending employment; that, as of 2012, he could no longer perform any work activity, as he suffers from "schizoaffective disorder with psychotic symptoms" and "multiple lumbar spondylodiscopathies"; finally, that due to these pathologies, he was recognized as a civil invalid with total and permanent work incapacity pursuant to Article 12 of Law no. 118 of 30 March 1971 (Conversion into law of Decree-Law no. 5 of 30 January 1971, and new regulations in favour of the mutilated and civil invalids), as well as being a person with "a serious handicap".

A. M., a Pakistani citizen, stated that he held a residence permit for employment reasons until 2022, when he ceased working because he suffers from "ambulatory deficit following post-traumatic ischemic spinal cord lesion (D6-D7) with spastic paraparesis of the lower limbs. Moderate-severe OSAS on CPAP. Bronchial asthma with fair clinical-functional control", pathologies for which he was recognized as a person with "a serious handicap".

The Milanese Court further specifies that both applicants became holders of a residence permit for elective residence as a consequence of the conversion of their previous residence title following the recognition, in their favour, of the civil disability pension referred to in the aforementioned Article 12 of Law no. 118 of 1971.

This conversion took place pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 11, paragraph 1, letter c-quater), of Presidential Decree no. 394 of 31 August 1999 (Regulation containing implementing provisions for the consolidated act on immigration and regulations on the status of aliens, pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 6, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 25 July 1998), according to which the residence permit is issued "for elective residence in favour of a foreign national in receipt of a pension paid in Italy", and 14, paragraph 1, letter d), of the same Presidential Decree, according to which "the residence permit issued for employment, self-employment, or family reasons may be converted" into the aforementioned elective residence permit.

3.1.– Having stated this, the referring court deems an interpretation of Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 oriented in accordance with the Constitution to be impracticable, because, in its view, the legislature provided for mandatory and free registration with the SSN only for specific categories of foreign nationals, making categorical reference to precise types of residence permits.

Consequently, the category of foreign nationals holding a residence permit for elective residence – granted by virtue of the conversion of a permit for employment reasons following the receipt of a civil disability pension – could not be included by analogy, as the aforementioned Article 34, paragraph 1, would not attribute any relevance "to the situation prior to that for which the foreign national currently holds a residence permit."

Moreover, a different conclusion could not be reached based on the circular of 19 July 2007 of the Ministry of Health (regarding "Registration with the National Health Service for students not belonging to the European Union"), according to which compulsory registration with the SSN would also apply in the case of the issuance of a residence permit for study reasons upon reaching the age of majority for foreign nationals who, previously, were in possession of a permit by virtue of which they were compulsorily registered: this exegesis, the referring court observes, would concern a type of permit different from that which is at issue in the proceedings *a quo*.

3.2.– In light of the above considerations, the requirement of relevance is satisfied.

3.3.– Regarding the non-manifest groundlessness, the referring court believes that Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 is in conflict, primarily, with Article 3 of the Constitution, for violation of the principles of reasonableness and equality.

3.3.1.– In its opinion, the challenged provision would dictate an unreasonable regulation and would end up discriminating, with respect to other categories of legally residing foreign nationals, against holders of the permit in question solely by reason of their disability condition.

The referring court observes that it would be unreasonable to preclude mandatory and free registration with the SSN for subjects who were previously compulsorily registered as holders of permits for employment or family reasons, solely because they became holders of a residence permit for elective residence following the recognition of a civil disability pension.

The Milanese Court further notes, under a first profile, that, in relation to the foreign nationals in question, there would exist the "same link of permanence" in the national territory that characterizes the position of foreign nationals in possession of permits for employment or family reasons; under a second profile, that, since the *de quibus* foreign nationals are disabled, reasons for protection "of no less importance" than those that characterize the position of those holding permits for medical treatment or for "humanitarian reasons", who do benefit from mandatory and free registration, would apply to them.

3.3.2.– The omission of the challenged provision would also give rise to an unreasonable disparity in treatment between legally residing foreign nationals and irregular foreign nationals.

Article 35, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, in fact, would guarantee free essential care for survival only to irregular foreign nationals lacking economic means, while those subject to today's judgment, who lack sufficient means to support the minimum contribution referred to in the previous Article 34, paragraph 3, would not even see these treatments guaranteed.

3.3.3.– Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 would also be a source of unreasonable disparity in treatment, for reasons of nationality, between Italian citizens and foreign nationals who are likewise in a condition of disability.

Italian citizens who benefit solely from the civil disability pension, pursuant to Article 63, third paragraph, of Law no. 833 of 23 December 1978 (Establishment of the National Health Service), would, in fact, be exempt from paying the annual contribution to the SSN that they would otherwise have to pay, whereas, on the contrary, the challenged provision would attribute no importance to the same condition of invalidity, thus forcing foreign nationals holding the aforementioned permit for elective residence to pay the contribution for voluntary registration.

3.4.– By virtue of similar considerations, according to the referring court, Article 34, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, challenged in the alternative, would also be constitutionally illegitimate, again for violation of the principle of equality.

This provision, for the purpose of voluntary registration with the SSN, would in fact impose on foreign nationals holding a residence permit for elective residence, derived from conversion obtained by virtue of the acquisition of a civil disability pension, the payment of a minimum contribution disproportionate to the economic conditions in which they find themselves, while for Italian citizens benefiting from the same pension treatment, "no payment of any contribution" would be provided.

3.4.1.– In the opinion of the referring court, the imposition, by Article 34, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, of the minimum contribution would also determine a disparity in treatment between foreign nationals, penalizing those less well-off and, therefore, simultaneously prejudicing the principle of substantive equality.

The referring court notes in this regard that, considering the income brackets and the rates provided by Article 1 of the decree of the Minister of Health of 8 October 1986 (Determination for the year 1986 of the contribution for health assistance to be paid by foreign citizens, pursuant to Article 5 of Decree-Law no. 663 of 30 December 1979, converted into law no. 33 of 29 February 1980) for the purpose of determining the contribution in question, this, in all situations below the income threshold of 31,924 euros, would in any case be due in the minimum amount of 2,000 euros, thus assuming a regressive character.

3.5.– The referring court then challenges both paragraph 1 and, in the alternative, paragraph 3 of Article 34 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 for violation of Article 32 of the Constitution.

The alleged injury would derive from the same considerations made regarding the complained-of disparity in treatment between legally residing foreign nationals and irregular foreign nationals.

3.6.– Finally, paragraph 1 and, in the alternative, paragraph 3 of Article 34 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 would violate Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, by being in conflict, firstly, with Article 13 of the European Social Charter – which guarantees the right to medical assistance to those who do not have sufficient resources –, since they would not ensure the enjoyment of indispensable medical care for foreign citizens who are in conditions of disability and do not enjoy an income that allows them to bear the minimum contribution. Secondly, with Articles 4 and 25 of the UNCRPD – which impose on States the obligation to provide these persons with free or affordable health services –, since they "would make access to health care difficult".

4.– The President of the Council of Ministers intervened in the proceedings, represented and defended by the State Attorney’s Office, requesting that the questions be declared inadmissible due to the inadequate experimentation of an interpretation of the primarily challenged provision in accordance with the Constitution.

4.1.– In the opinion of the State Attorney's Office, in fact, should the permit for elective residence have been issued following the conversion of a residence title provided for by Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, the subject entitled to compulsory registration would retain this right.

The opposing hermeneutic solution, instead, would be completely unreasonable, as it would end up subjecting foreign citizens to burdensome registration precisely when they might need health assistance the most, by reason of their subsequent condition of invalidity.

Moreover, the State Attorney's Office adds, even the agreement adopted on 20 December 2012 in the Permanent Conference for relations between the State, the Regions, and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano (Agreement, pursuant to Article 4 of Legislative Decree no. 281 of 28 August 1997, between the Government, the Regions, and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano on the document entitled: "Indications for the correct application of the legislation for health assistance to the foreign population by the Regions and Autonomous Provinces") would have "given a broad application to the provisions regarding compulsory registration" with the SSN, including cases of permits for "elective residence with ownership of an Italian contributory pension".

5.– D.W.N. K., the appellant in the proceedings *a quo*, appeared in the present proceedings and requested that the questions be upheld, further emphasizing that an interpretation of Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 in accordance with the Constitution has been adopted by the case law (the Ordinary Court of Turin, labour section, judgment no. 2353 of 31 October 2025 is cited) and would be "completely plausible".

5.1.– The party dwells, in particular, on the disparity between the treatment reserved for the foreign nationals subject to the present incident and that reserved for foreign nationals holding the permit for medical treatment referred to in Article 19, paragraph 2, letter d-bis), of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, to whom the challenged Article 34, paragraph 1, recognizes the right to mandatory and free registration.

It also specifies that this right would not be based, from a perspective of reciprocity, on prior fiscal contribution, so that the only circumstance that would determine its loss would, ultimately, be constituted by the intervening disability.

5.2.– As for the provision challenged in the alternative, the party refers to the reasoning of the referral order.

6.– Ledha – League for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities APS presented, as an *amicus curiae*, a written opinion, admitted by presidential decree of 12 March 2026, arguing in support of the validity of the raised questions.

7.– In proximity to the public hearing, the party filed a brief insisting on the conclusions already submitted and, in the alternative, "adhering to the conclusions of the Presidency of the Council [...] as the right in question is already recognized [...] or in any case by reason of the possibility of an interpretation [of Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998] in accordance with the Constitution".

Considered in Law

8.– With the order indicated in the epigraph (reg. ord. no. 216 of 2025), the Court of Milan, sitting as a labour court, raises questions of constitutional legitimacy, primarily, of Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, according to which the following are compulsorily registered with the SSN: "a) foreign nationals legally residing who are engaged in regular employment or self-employment activities or are registered in employment lists; b) foreign nationals legally residing or who have requested the renewal of their residence permit, for employment, self-employment, for family reasons, asylum, subsidiary protection, special cases, special protection, for medical treatment pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 2, letter d-bis), for asylum application, pending adoption, foster care, for the acquisition of citizenship; b-bis) unaccompanied foreign minors, even pending the issuance of the residence permit, following legal notifications upon their discovery within the national territory."

The referring court challenges this provision insofar as it does not provide for mandatory and free registration with the SSN in favour of foreign nationals holding a residence permit for elective residence derived from the conversion, by virtue of the subsequently acquired right to a civil disability pension, of a residence permit for employment, self-employment, or family reasons.

The omission of the regulatory provision would violate Article 3 of the Constitution, first of all, because one would be in the presence of subjects who, by virtue of the permit they previously held, had the right to mandatory and free registration, which they would unreasonably lose as a consequence of their subsequent disability. This condition, therefore, would end up discriminating against them with respect to holders of residence permits for employment or family reasons, as well as holders of permits for medical treatment or for "humanitarian reasons", who would indeed benefit from the said registration.

Article 3 of the Constitution would, moreover, be breached because the challenged provision would give rise to an unreasonable disparity in treatment even between legally residing foreign nationals and equally indigent irregular foreign nationals, failing to ensure for the former the essential care for survival, which is instead guaranteed to the latter by Article 35, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998.

The challenged provision would also lead to an unjustified disparity in treatment with respect to Italian citizens who are in a condition of disability, who, pursuant to Article 63, third paragraph, of Law no. 833 of 1978, would instead be exempt from paying the annual contribution otherwise due to the SSN.

For the same reason illustrated as the basis for the alleged disparity in treatment between regular and irregular foreign nationals, Article 32 of the Constitution would also be infringed.

Finally, Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution would be violated, due to conflict both with Article 13 of the European Social Charter, as the provision in question would preclude the possibility of enjoying indispensable medical care, and with Articles 4 and 25 of the UNCRPD, because it would make access to health services difficult.

8.1.– In the alternative, the referring court raises questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 34, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, insofar as it provides that the same foreign citizens holding the aforementioned residence permit for elective residence are required to pay, for the purpose of voluntary registration with the SSN, a sum in any case not less than 2,000 euros per year, rather than one commensurate with their actual income.

This provision would violate Article 3 of the Constitution, generating an unreasonable disparity in treatment between disabled foreign citizens and Italian citizens, who do not have to pay any contribution, and assuming a regressive character, as well as Articles 32 and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, the latter in relation to Article 13 of the European Social Charter and Articles 4 and 25 of the UNCRPD, as it would not ensure indispensable medical care to disabled foreign citizens and would make their access to health care difficult.

9.– The State Attorney's Office preliminarily raised an exception of inadmissibility due to inadequate experimentation of an interpretation of Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 in accordance with the Constitution.

9.1.– The exception must be dismissed.

The case law of this Court is constant in holding that "for the purposes of the admissibility of a question of constitutional legitimacy, it is sufficient that the judge accounts for the reasons for which he does not deem an interpretation of the challenged provision in accordance with the Constitution to be practicable, the verification of whether or not the provision lends itself, in the opinion of this Court, to such an interpretation then pertaining to the merits of the question (among many, judgments no. 202 and no. 104 of 2023)" (judgment no. 225 of 2023).

In this regard, the referring court motivated its conviction on the impracticability of an interpretative adjustment, believing, differently from what was argued by the State Attorney's Office, that the literal wording of Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 does not attribute any importance "to the situation prior to that for which the foreign national currently holds a residence permit".

10.– On the merits, the questions raised against the primarily challenged provision are not well-founded, in the following terms.

10.1.– In the case at hand, there is no doubt that Articles 3, 32, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution would be violated if the only possible interpretation of the aforementioned Article 34, paragraph 1, were the one proposed by the referring court and aimed at excluding foreign citizens, already holders of a residence permit for employment or family reasons, from mandatory and free registration with the SSN, solely by virtue of the subsequent acquisition of the right to a civil disability pension.

In this hypothesis, paradoxically, the loss of the right to mandatory and free registration with the National Health Service would occur precisely at the moment when the person, due to the subsequent condition of disability, has become more vulnerable and, given the highly disabling pathologies, is in a situation where the need to access health services manifests itself more pressingly.

No justifying reason appears to support such a solution. The referring court itself highlights that the conversion, although innovating the residence title, does not make the rooting of the disabled foreign nationals in question in the national territory less stable than it was previously, or when they were holders of permits for employment or family reasons.

The aforementioned interpretative outcome, on the other hand, would be completely irreconcilable with the consolidated case law of this Court, according to which "the legal condition of a person with a disability is situated at the crossroads of 'a complex of values that reach the fundamental inspiring motives of the constitutional design' and the safeguarding of their rights finds 'a constitutional basis in the guarantee of the dignity of the person [himself/herself] and of the fundamental right to health [...]'" (most recently, judgment no. 197 of 2025; in the same sense, *ex plurimis*, judgments no. 3 of 2025, no. 42 of 2024, and no. 110 of 2022).

Constitutional case law, moreover, has specified, for some time now, that analogous principles aimed at the protection of the most fragile persons "inspire the Community and international provisions contained, in particular, in the Treaty establishing the European Community, in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted on 13 December 2006 by the United Nations General Assembly and in the 'Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, of 17 March 2008, on the situation of persons with disabilities in the European Union'" (judgment no. 251 of 2008).

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in paragraph 1, subsequent to the aforementioned ruling, also prohibited any form of discrimination based, among other things, on "disabilities".

From the set of these principles, it follows that the legislature, on one hand, is required to adopt legislative interventions supporting persons who, being disabled, find themselves in a situation of "particular vulnerability" (judgment no. 110 of 2022).

On the other hand, specifically, it cannot provide for a worsening treatment of legally residing disabled foreign nationals, depriving them of the right to mandatory and free registration with the SSN, solely because of their condition of greater, confirmed need.

The disability pension, in fact, is aimed "at meeting the condition of need of those who, due to invalidity, are not able to procure the necessary means of sustenance" and falls "among the provisions destined for the sustenance of the person, as well as the safeguarding of acceptable living conditions for the family context in which the disabled person is inserted" (judgment no. 152 of 2020).

10.2.– This Court, in light of what has now been recalled, cannot therefore share the hermeneutic assumption from which all the grievances of the referring court move, which are based on the conviction that Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 would contain an exhaustive list of types of residence permits, in which it would not be possible to include by analogy that of foreign nationals holding a permit for elective residence attributed by virtue of the conversion of the permit for employment reasons following the acquisition of a disability pension.

It is possible to depart from this interpretation by virtue of a systematic consideration of the legal system.

Indeed, in 1998, when the aforementioned Article 34, paragraph 1, was adopted, neither the permit for elective residence nor the conversion into the latter, following the recognition of the civil disability pension, of a previous permit for employment or family reasons was provided for.

It is only a few years later, with Articles 11, paragraph 1, letter a), and 13, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree no. 334 of 18 October 2004 (Regulation containing amendments and additions to the Decree of the President of the Republic no. 394 of 31 August 1999, regarding immigration), that Articles 11, paragraph 1, letter c-quater), and 14, paragraph 1, letter d), of Presidential Decree no. 394 of 1999 were introduced, which regulated, respectively, the permit for elective residence and the conversion into the latter of permits for employment, self-employment, or family reasons.

The omission, by the challenged Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, of the permit for elective residence must not, therefore, necessarily be read as a conscious exclusion, by the legislature, of mandatory and free registration for foreign nationals holding a permit for elective residence derived from conversion.

It follows that the consideration of the evolution of the legal system leaves space for this Court for an interpretation that corresponds to the constitutional, Union, and international principles previously recalled, which from multiple points of view converge on the indispensable protection of the rights of the most fragile and vulnerable persons.

This Court therefore considers it possible and mandatory to draw from the challenged provision, by virtue of an interpretation in accordance with the Constitution, a rule that, while making reference to permits for employment and family reasons, allows for mandatory and free registration also to those who were previously holders of these same permits and have then obtained their conversion into the one for elective residence by virtue of the subsequent recognition of a disability pension.

This adaptive reading of paragraph 1 of Article 34 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 allows us to consider all the reasons for challenge articulated by the referring court as primarily not well-founded, and the questions raised in the alternative on Article 34, paragraph 3, of the same legislative decree as absorbed.

FOR THESE REASONS

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 34, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 25 July 1998 (Consolidated Act of the provisions concerning immigration and regulations on the status of aliens), raised in reference to Articles 3, 32, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, the latter in relation to Article 13 of the European Social Charter, adopted in Turin on 18 October 1961 and revised, with annex, in Strasbourg on 3 May 1996, ratified and executed by Law no. 30 of 9 February 1999, and to Articles 4 and 25 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved by the General Assembly on 13 December 2006, ratified and executed by Law no. 18 of 3 March 2009 (Ratification and execution of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with Optional Protocol, made in New York on 13 December 2006 and establishment of the National Observatory on the status of persons with disabilities), by the Ordinary Court of Milan, sitting as a labour court, with the order indicated in the epigraph, to be not well-founded, in the sense of the legal reasoning.

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

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Luca ANTONINI, Reporting Justice

Valeria EMMA, Chancellor

Deposited in the Chancery on 5 June 2026

 

The anonymized version conforms, in its text, to the original