ORDER NO. 112
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 concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 35 of Law no. 833 of 23 December 1978 (Establishment of the National Health Service), initiated by the Ordinary Court of Florence in the proceedings between L. C. and the Municipality of Empoli, by order of 29 December 2025, registered as no. 29 in the register of orders for 2026 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 9, first special series, of the year 2026.
Having examined the application for intervention by S. P., C.S. S., S. D.A., and F. S.;
having heard the Reporting Judge Stefano Petitti at the chambers session of 22 June 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 of S. P., C.S. S., S. D.A., and F. S.;
deliberated in the chambers session of 22 June 2026.
Noting that the Ordinary Court of Florence, by order of 29 December 2025, registered as no. 29 in the register of orders for 2026 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, no. 9, first special series, of the year 2026, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy, with reference to Article 24 of the Constitution, regarding Article 35 of Law no. 833 of 23 December 1978 (Establishment of the National Health Service) "in the part where it does not prescribe that, immediately after the issuance of the validation order by the Mayor, the patient must be informed of the right to appoint legal counsel; in the part where, in the event of the appointment of counsel, it does not prescribe the obligation to notify the mayoral order also to the counsel of the interested party; in the part where it does not provide that the hearing of the patient must be conducted in the presence of counsel, if appointed, and, finally, in the part where it does not prescribe the obligation to notify the validation decree of the guardianship judge to the appointed counsel as well";
that, by a deed filed on 21 March 2026, S. P., C.S. S., S. D.A., and F. S. intervened in the proceedings;
that the intervenors state they are parties to pending proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Florence (S. P.), the Court of Appeal of Milan (C.S. S.), and the Ordinary Court of Rome (S. D.A. and F. S.), respectively, in which the measures ordering mandatory health treatments (TSO) against them have been challenged on multiple grounds;
that the intervenors argue for the admissibility of the intervention by claiming to hold a qualified and direct interest in the success of the constitutional legitimacy question, given the identity of the ratio decidendi between the a quo proceedings and the cases concerning them, in which Article 35 of Law no. 833 of 1978 must be applied, in particular because the lack of legal counsel during the validation proceedings allegedly prevented them from raising formal objections regarding the illegitimacy of the measure, thereby precluding the guardianship judge from a comprehensive review of the measure's legitimacy.
Considering that S. P., C.S. S., S. D.A., and F. S. have filed an application for intervention and are not parties to the main proceedings;
that, by resolution of this Court dated 12 March 2026, amendments were introduced to the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which entered into force on 8 May 2026;
that, regarding procedural rules, the decision on the admissibility of the intervention must refer to the current Article 5 of the Supplementary Rules, as replaced by the aforementioned resolution of this Court dated 12 March 2026, as it is immediately applicable from its entry into force (most recently, orders no. 102, no. 101, and no. 81 of 2026);
that, conversely, for the purpose of verifying the requirements for the admissibility of the intervention, the previous regulations apply, as the application for intervention was filed on 21 March 2026, and therefore prior to the entry into force of the aforementioned amendments (further, orders no. 102, no. 101, and no. 81 of 2026);
that, according to the settled case law of this Court, participation in incidental proceedings of constitutional legitimacy is restricted to the parties to the a quo proceedings, as well as the President of the Council of Ministers and, in the case of regional law, the President of the Regional Junta (Articles 3 and 4 of the Supplementary Rules, in the version prior to the amendments made by the aforementioned resolution of 12 March 2026);
that, in this context, the intervention of subjects extraneous to the main proceedings is admissible only when such parties hold a qualified interest, inherent in a direct and immediate manner to the substantive relationship deduced in the proceedings (Article 4 of the Supplementary Rules, again in the version prior to the amendments of the resolution of 12 March 2026) and not merely regulated, like any other, by the provision subject to challenge (most recently, order no. 81 of 2026);
that, regarding applications for intervention by subjects who are parties to proceedings analogous to the one from which the question originates, it must be reiterated that it is not sufficient for the qualification of interest for the purposes of admissibility of the intervention that the subject holds interests analogous to those deduced in the main proceedings, or that they are a party to an analogous, yet separate, proceeding in which the same provision is applied and on which the decision of this Court may have an impact (judgments no. 63 of 2026 and no. 199 of 2025; orders no. 102 and no. 81 of 2026);
that, therefore, the intervention of S. P., C.S. S., S. D.A., and F. S. 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 S. P., C.S. S., S. D.A., and F. S. in the constitutional legitimacy proceedings initiated by the Ordinary Court of Florence to be inadmissible.
Decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 22 June 2026.
Signed:
Giovanni AMOROSO, President
Stefano PETITTI, Rapporteur
Roberto MILANA, Director of the Chancellery
Filed in the Chancellery on 23 June 2026
The anonymized version conforms, in its text, to the original.