ORDER NO. 98
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 issued the following
ORDER
in the proceedings regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 812, letter a), number 2), of Law no. 207 of December 30, 2024 (State Budget for the 2025 financial year and multiannual budget for the 2025-2027 three-year period), initiated by the Court of Cassation, Third Civil Section, in the proceedings between A. F. and A. M., with order dated December 11, 2025, registered as no. 30 of the 2026 order register and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 9, first special series, of the year 2026.
Having examined the petitions for intervention submitted by the National Bar Association (ANF) and the President of the Council of Ministers;
having heard the Reporting Judge Luca Antonini at the chambers hearing of June 8, 2026, scheduled pursuant to Article 5 of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court for the decision on the admissibility of the intervention by the National Bar Association;
having deliberated in chambers on June 8, 2026.
Whereas the Court of Cassation, Third Civil Section, by order of December 11, 2025 (registered as no. 30 of the 2026 order register), raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 1, paragraph 812, letter a), number 2), of Law no. 207 of December 30, 2024 (State Budget for the 2025 financial year and multiannual budget for the 2025-2027 three-year period), in reference to Articles 3, 24, and 111 of the Constitution;
whereas the said provision inserts, after paragraph 3 of Article 14 of Presidential Decree no. 115 of May 30, 2002, titled "Consolidated Law on legislative and regulatory provisions concerning legal costs (Text A)", the new paragraph 3.1., according to which: "[w]ithout prejudice to the exemptions provided for by law, in civil proceedings, the case may not be entered on the docket unless the amount determined pursuant to Article 13, paragraph 1, letter a), or the lower contribution due by law is paid";
whereas the aforementioned Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Law on legal costs establishes the amount of the unified filing fee, and the lower amount provided therein is that referred to in the aforementioned letter a), which sets it at 43 Euros;
whereas, in the opinion of the court *a quo*, the challenged provision would unreasonably preclude the right of access to judicial protection, in violation of Articles 3, 24, and 111 of the Constitution, in that: a) it would imply that it is "the clerk […] who must order the refusal" of the docketing, with the consequence that this administrative body would be entrusted with the fate of a legal claim; b) "no connection" could be discerned "between the imposition of the tax and an objective of rationalizing the justice service";
whereas Article 3 of the Constitution would also be violated regarding the principle of equality, since the suspected provision: a) within the scope of the Court of Cassation proceedings, would not subject the main appellant and the incidental appellant to the same rules; b) would unjustifiably reserve the same treatment for all civil disputes, regardless of their value, as well as for those who are able to bear the cost of the minimum contribution and those who are, conversely, lacking the economic means to do so; c) would introduce a more detrimental regime compared to the "previous rules," under which the failure to pay the unified filing fee did not preclude access to judicial protection;
whereas, on March 19, 2026, the National Bar Association (ANF) filed an act of intervention in the proceedings, and on the same date, it also submitted a written opinion in its capacity as *amicus curiae*;
whereas the ANF observes, in support of its standing to intervene, that, according to its statutory provisions, it operates for the protection of the right to take legal action and to defend oneself in court, which would be prejudiced by the challenged provision.
Considering that the ANF has filed an act of intervention and is not a party to the *a quo* proceedings;
whereas, with the resolution of this Court dated March 12, 2026, amendments were introduced to the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which entered into force on May 8, 2026;
whereas, in procedural terms, for the purpose of the decision on the admissibility of the intervention, it is necessary to refer to the current Article 5 of the Supplementary Rules, as replaced by the aforementioned resolution, as it is immediately applicable from its entry into force (order no. 81 of 2026);
whereas, instead, for the purpose of verifying the prerequisites for the admissibility of the intervention, the previous regulations are applicable, since the act of intervention was filed on March 19, 2026, and therefore before the entry into force of the aforementioned amendments (again, order no. 81 of 2026);
whereas, according to the consistent orientation of this Court established under the previous rules, the intervention of subjects who, relative to the subject matter of the incidental constitutional legitimacy proceedings, claim only an interest "connected in a general way to the statutory purposes of protecting their members" is not admissible (Judgment no. 142 of 2025 and, in the same sense, Judgment no. 63 of 2026, as well as, with specific regard to the ANF, the order attached to Judgment no. 173 of 2019);
whereas this conclusion is all the more valid following the introduction of the possibility for "non-profit social organizations and institutional subjects holding collective or diffuse interests related to the question of constitutional legitimacy to submit [...] a written opinion in the capacity of *amici curiae*" (again, Judgment no. 142 of 2025; in the same sense, among many, Judgment no. 46 of 2021 and order no. 85 of 2025), a possibility which, moreover, has materialized in this case;
whereas, therefore, the intervention must be declared inadmissible.
Having regard to Articles 4 and 5 of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
for these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares the intervention filed by the National Bar Association inadmissible.
Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on June 8, 2026.
Signed:
Giovanni AMOROSO, President
Luca ANTONINI, Reporting Judge
Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry
Filed in the Registry on June 8, 2026
The anonymized version is consistent, in text, with the original