JUDGMENT NO. 119

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 Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of April 15, 2024 (Provisions concerning the regulation of pedagogical and educational professions and the establishment of the related professional registries), initiated by the Ordinary Court of Milan, sitting as a labour court, in the proceedings between the General Italian Confederation of Labour (CGIL) Lombardy and others and the Ministry of Justice, by order of October 20, 2025, registered as no. 234 of the 2025 registry of orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 50, first special series, of the year 2025.

Having examined the statement of appearance of the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI) APS, Avvocati per niente ONLUS (APN), the Voluntary Organization for socio-health assistance and for the rights of foreign citizens, Roma and Sinti (NAGA Association), and CGIL Lombardy;

having examined the intervention of the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard the reporting Judge Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi at the public hearing of April 15, 2026;

having heard counsel Alberto Guariso for ASGI APS and the other parties, as well as

State Attorney Lorenzo D’Ascia for the President of the Council of Ministers;

deliberated in the chambers on April 15, 2026.

Findings of Fact

1.– By order of October 20, 2025, registered as no. 234 of the 2025 registry of orders, the Ordinary Court of Milan, sitting as a labour court, raised questions regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of April 15, 2024 (Provisions concerning the regulation of pedagogical and educational professions and the establishment of the related professional registries), insofar as it requires foreign citizens legally residing in Italy, for the purpose of registration in the professional registry of pedagogists and that of socio-pedagogical professional educators, the additional prerequisite of the existence of the condition of reciprocity.

The questions are raised with reference to Articles 3(1), 4(1), 35(1), 10(2), and 117(1) of the Constitution, the latter in relation to Article 11 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of November 25, 2003, concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents; Article 10 of the International Labour Organization Convention no. 143 of June 24, 1975, on Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers, ratified and executed by Law no. 158 of April 10, 1981; and Article 5, together with recitals 2 and 3, of Directive (EU) 2018/958 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 28, 2018, on a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions.

1.1.– The referring court states that it has been seized of a civil action against discrimination, pursuant to Article 281-decies of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 28 of Legislative Decree no. 150 of September 1, 2011 (Supplementary provisions to the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the reduction and simplification of civil cognition proceedings, pursuant to Article 54 of Law no. 69 of June 18, 2009), brought by the General Italian Confederation of Labour (CGIL) Lombardy, Avvocati per niente ONLUS (APN), the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI) APS, and the Voluntary Organization for socio-health assistance and for the rights of foreign citizens, Roma and Sinti (NAGA Association), against the Ministry of Justice.

The applicants – the Court explains – represented that, prior to Law no. 55 of 2024, the practice of the professions of socio-pedagogical professional educator and pedagogist was regulated by Law no. 205 of December 27, 2017 (State Budget for the 2018 financial year and multi-year budget for the 2018-2020 period), which, in Article 1(595 and 596), required a master’s degree for this purpose, without providing for requirements related to the status civitatis of the candidates.

Law no. 55 of 2024, conversely, in specifying the requirements for access to these professions, mandated the registration of professionals in the respective registries, also indicating, in the challenged Article 7(1)(a), as a condition for such registration, that one must be "an Italian citizen or a citizen of a European Union member state or of a State with which the condition of reciprocity applies in this matter." This prerequisite is not required for educators working in the socio-health sector, a professional category regulated by the Decree of the Ministry of Health of March 13, 2018 (Establishment of the registries of technical, rehabilitation, and prevention health professions).

The parties also reported that the establishment of the two registries is currently in a transitional phase, as provisional commissioners have been appointed at each Court of Appeal to form an initial list of those entitled to registration and to call for elections, which are prerequisites for the establishment of the respective professional orders. As of now, the commissioners have prepared the application forms, requiring applicants to attest, pursuant to Presidential Decree no. 445 of December 28, 2000, containing the "Consolidated text of legislative and regulatory provisions on administrative documentation (Text A)," the existence of all legal requirements, including the condition of reciprocity.

The applicants, therefore, believing that the requirement of this condition violates the principle of non-discrimination, have requested a finding of the discriminatory nature of the Ministry of Justice's conduct — and, on its behalf, that of the commissioners — consisting in having required citizens of non-EU States to meet the reciprocity condition and in having failed to issue a provision clarifying that all legally residing foreigners holding a permit that allows for work activities have the right to access the registries regardless of said requirement. They have therefore requested that an expansive and compliant interpretation of the rule be applied, or that it be disapplied due to conflict with the general prohibition of discrimination under Article 5 of Directive 2018/958/EU; alternatively, they requested that the court raise the question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of 2024 for violation of Articles 3, 4, and 117(1) of the Constitution.

The Ministry of Justice, having appeared before the Court of Milan, insisted on the dismissal of the applicants' claims as inadmissible and unfounded.

1.2.– Having set out the facts, the referring court reconstructs the relevant regulatory framework, noting that the ministerial decree intended to implement Law no. 55 of 2024 has not yet been issued, and that the deadline for submitting applications for registration in the relevant registries has been extended several times, until March 31, 2026.

For the Court, the distinction in access requirements between Italian citizens or citizens of an EU member state and citizens of third countries, "dependent on the implementation of Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55/2024," would create a discriminatory situation under two profiles.

Firstly, it would result in direct discrimination on grounds of nationality, prohibited by Article 2 of Presidential Decree no. 137 of August 7, 2012 (Regulation on the reform of professional orders, pursuant to Article 3(5) of Decree-Law no. 138 of August 13, 2011, converted with amendments by Law no. 148 of September 14, 2011), as well as by Article 4 of Legislative Decree no. 142 of October 16, 2020, implementing Directive (EU) 2018/958, given that the challenged rule would introduce different and more burdensome conditions for non-EU citizens, even if legally residing, introducing an element of discrimination linked to status civitatis.

Furthermore, discrimination would also occur indirectly with regard to the rules provided for educators working in the socio-health sector, for whom the condition of reciprocity is not required.

1.3.– In order to remove the discrimination challenged by the parties, however, the Court excludes both the feasibility of a constitutionally compliant interpretation of the challenged provision and the possibility of disapplying it.

1.3.1.– Regarding the former, the court a quo believes it cannot interpret the challenged provision in light of the consolidated jurisprudence (citing Court of Cassation, Labour Section, Order no. 26741 of September 18, 2023) according to which the condition of reciprocity, under Article 16 of the General Provisions of the Civil Code (*Preleggi*), does not apply to fundamental rights, among which the right to work is undeniably included.

According to the referring court, Article 16 of the *Preleggi* cannot prevent another sectoral and equally ranked rule, such as Article 7 of Law no. 55 of 2024, from conditioning the exercise of specific rights for certain subjects upon the reciprocity requirement.

Nor could the provisions of Article 1(2) of Presidential Decree no. 394 of August 31, 1999 (Regulation containing implementing rules of the consolidated text of provisions concerning immigration and rules on the condition of the alien, pursuant to Article 1(6) of Legislative Decree no. 286 of July 25, 1998) be of assistance, which excludes the verification of the reciprocity condition "for foreign citizens holding the residence card referred to in Article 9 of the consolidated text, as well as for foreign citizens holding a residence permit for reasons of subordinate work or self-employment, for the exercise of a sole proprietorship, for family reasons, for humanitarian reasons and for study reasons, and for their family members in compliance with residence requirements," as it is – observes the court a quo – "a regulatory rule, of secondary rank, inserted in a sectoral regulatory structure that governs the specific matter of immigration."

To these reasons, the referring court finally adds that the "clarity and univocality of the regulatory wording" also leads to the denial of any adequate hermeneutic possibility.

1.3.2.– Similarly, for the court a quo, the path of disapplication is not viable, due to the "nature of the directive, [the] quality of the applicants, and [the] type of claims filed."

For the Court, first of all, Directive 2018/958/EU is not self-executing, requiring transposition by the Member States. Furthermore, the mechanism of disapplication would by its nature have an inter partes effect, preventing the domestic rule from having relevance solely for the definition of the litigation pending before the national judge applying the disapplication; in the present case, however, the applicants, as representative bodies, "act with the intent of adopting a future removal plan, intended for an entire category of subjects, namely non-EU citizens, whose right appears, by virtue of the challenged rules, conditioned on the existence of reciprocity in the country of origin."

Finally, following what was affirmed by Judgment no. 15 of 2024 of this Court, the referring court observes that the exercise of ordering power by the judicial authority, functional to the injunction and removal of discrimination, "can only proceed through the question of constitutional legitimacy," given that the administrative action assumed to be discriminatory is merely implementing and, therefore, reproductive of a legislative rule of unequivocal tenor.

1.4.– The considerations made above lead the court a quo to consider the question of constitutional legitimacy to be relevant, as it is "evident […] how the pending judgment cannot be defined independently of the resolution" of the same.

1.5.– As for the non-manifest groundlessness, the Court perceives, first of all, a conflict of Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of 2024 with Article 3(1) of the Constitution, as it would create an unjustified disparity of treatment for non-EU foreigners compared to Italian citizens or those of another EU Member State.

The court a quo recalls that, according to constitutional jurisprudence, the introduction of selective criteria based on status civitatis would be legitimate only in light of a "reasonable connection between the requirement itself and the function of the service to which it constitutes a filter," as would also be deduced from Article 3(3) of Legislative Decree no. 215 of July 9, 2003 (Implementation of Directive 2000/43/EC for equal treatment between persons regardless of race and ethnic origin).

In this perspective, however, the subordination of registration in the registry of non-EU citizens to the condition of reciprocity "appears incoherent and illogical and completely eccentric with respect to the purposes of the rule," because it introduces an element of differentiation extraneous to the profiles of training, professionalism, and ethics of the pedagogist or socio-pedagogical educator, with respect to which the regulation of the practice of the profession through the establishment of registries and the constitution of orders is functional, fulfilling "a neuralgic function of public interest."

The unreasonableness of the provision would be even more evident – for the referring court – considering that the burden of attesting, pursuant to Presidential Decree no. 445 of 2000, to the existence of the reciprocity condition, would weigh on the applicants, burdening them also with a duty of "knowledge of the complex rules of regulation of professional orders in the countries of origin."

Still according to the court a quo, the "extraneity of the rule [of reciprocity] to the purposes proper to the law" would also be derived from the real intent underlying the challenged provision, which, based on what was declared in the appearance of the Ministry of Justice, would concern the relations between state systems and would consist in the "need to avoid a 'situation of discrimination a contrario, with certainly paradoxical and anti-juridical effects'."

The referring court also identifies a profile of conflict with Article 3(1) of the Constitution due to disparity of treatment compared to socio-health professional educators, whose discipline – identified in the Ministerial Decree of March 13, 2018 – requires, for non-EU citizens, only the recognition of the degree qualifying for the exercise of the health profession, without providing anything regarding the condition of reciprocity.

1.6.– The challenged provision would also be in violation of Articles 4(1) and 35(1) of the Constitution.

The referring court observes, in this regard, that legislative guarantees of equal treatment and full equality of rights for non-EU workers compared to Italian ones have been introduced into our legal system since Law no. 943 of December 30, 1986 (Rules on the placement and treatment of immigrant non-EU workers and against clandestine immigration) and are now reiterated by Article 2(2 and 3) of Legislative Decree no. 286 of July 25, 1998 (Consolidated text of provisions concerning immigration and rules on the condition of the foreigner). As recognized by constitutional jurisprudence (referring to Judgment no. 454 of 1998), once a foreign citizen has been authorized for stable subordinate work in Italy, enjoying a suitable residence permit, they enjoy all the rights recognized to Italian workers. In this light, the introduction of limits or conditions on access and the exercise of professions "that do not find a reasonable justification in the characteristics of the profession" itself would conflict with the legislator’s duty to promote the conditions that make the right to work effective and to protect it in all its forms and applications.

1.7.– Lastly, the court a quo identifies a profile of constitutional illegitimacy with reference to Articles 10(2) and 117(1) of the Constitution, and to the supranational sources represented by Article 10 (concerning the promotion of equal opportunity and treatment) of the ILO Convention no. 143 of 1975, by Article 11 (concerning equality of treatment) of Directive 2003/109/EC on the status of long-term residents, and by Article 5 (concerning non-discrimination) of Directive 2018/958/EU on access to professions, together with recitals 2 and 3 (concerning the competence of Member States and the principle of proportionality).

For the referring court, in fact, a national provision requiring non-EU citizens, as a condition for access to the professional registry, the existence of the reciprocity condition, "in the absence of any requirement of public order, security, or correspondence to the interest of the State, if not in the purely protectionist logic that characterizes it," would conflict "with sectoral supranational legislation and, indirectly," with the aforementioned constitutional parameters.

2.– By an act filed on December 30, 2025, ASGI APS, APN, NAGA Association, and CGIL Lombardy, parties in the a quo proceedings, appeared in court.

In adhering to the conclusions of the referral order, the parties intended to emphasize the practical scope of the contested rule, highlighting in particular how, as a result of it, foreign workers, already practicing one of the two professions, would find themselves in the impossibility of continuing to perform their activity, not due to the requirement of stricter qualifications, but "simply because the country of origin would not apply conditions of reciprocity," with serious difficulty not only for foreign citizens but also for public or private employers.

There would therefore be a "useless organizational disruption," aggravated by the provision of a transitional discipline as a result of which employment relationships in place will continue "only to then be interrupted ex lege in case of non-existence of the reciprocity condition."

The parties also highlight the absence of a specific provision regarding the procedure to be followed for the verification of the reciprocity condition, given that Article 1 of Presidential Decree no. 394 of 1999 would be "rather obscur[e]," thus making the challenged rule "of (almost) impossible practical application." In addition, the associations remark on the unreasonableness of the provision in question, observing how the legislator "ends up forcing foreign citizens to attest to a condition that, based on a secondary rule that is still in force, must not be verified." This would lead to a "deterrent" effect towards the foreigner lacking the requirement and a general situation of legal uncertainty due to the "absolute impossibility of coordinating" Article 1(2) of Presidential Decree no. 394 of 1999, according to which such verification cannot be required, with Article 7 of Law no. 55 of 2024, which instead requires such condition.

For the parties, moreover, the substantive content of Article 5 of Directive 2018/958/EU and, therefore, its effective outcome, would be to prohibit discriminatory regulatory provisions, thus being suitable for grounding the right of the individual not to suffer differentiations by reason of nationality.

Finally, the associations believe that the decisive and absorbing parameter, among those indicated by the court a quo, is Article 117(1) of the Constitution, in relation to Directive 2018/958/EU and "certainly to Article 11 of Directive 2003/109," since the provision under examination would constitute direct discrimination by reason of nationality, as such prohibited by Union law, without the pursued objective or the necessary and proportionate nature of the means used being relevant.

3.– The President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney’s Office, intervened in the proceedings, asking for the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the Court of Milan to be declared inadmissible or, alternatively, unfounded.

3.1.– In the opinion of the state defense, the questions would be "prematur[e]" due to the lack of concreteness and timeliness of the injury complained of in relation to the factual state of the challenged discipline.

The system would, in fact, still be in a transitional phase due to the extension of the deadline for submitting applications for registration in the registries, nor would there be, on a factual level, any denials of registration of foreign citizens for lack of the reciprocity requirement.

For the intervener, moreover, the discriminatory action "does not seem suitable to constitute the procedural vehicle through which to challenge primary rank norms."

In this regard, the State Attorney's Office emphasizes that "once the rule challenged for unconstitutionality is eliminated from the system and recognized as such by the Court – no discriminatory prejudice could appear against anyone, given that the administrative action has not yet had the opportunity to manifest itself in concrete terms. In such a case, therefore, the outcome of the judgment would not be the acceptance of the claim but probably a declaration of cessation of the matter of contention."

3.2.– On the merits of the question, the President of the Council of Ministers believes that the court a quo has not adequately considered the margin of discretion reserved to the legislator in regulating access to professional orders.

Registration in a professional registry – for the intervener – would not coincide tout court with the fundamental right to work, such as to make the reciprocity condition referred to in Article 16 of the *Preleggi* non-operative, but would rather configure the acquisition of a qualified status that enables the exercise of functions of public importance.

Furthermore, according to the state defense, the referring Court would have overlooked the real purpose of the challenged rule "which is not technical but political-diplomatic." In this perspective, the condition of reciprocity would act as an "instrument of foreign policy," with which the Italian State, in order to protect its own professionals, wants to push third States to open their markets to Italian workers.

Similarly, the disparity of treatment compared to socio-health professional educators would be unfounded, whose discipline would respond to the purposes of health protection under Article 32 of the Constitution, to the need to guarantee essential levels of assistance (LEA), and to compensate for staff shortages; needs not shared by pedagogical and educational professions, despite their high social importance.

As for the alleged violation of European parameters and Article 117(1) of the Constitution, the President of the Council of Ministers observes that Directive 2018/958/EU and the principles of non-discrimination operate to protect the freedom of movement of European citizens and their family members, as well as "citizens of third countries who have already acquired the status of long-term residents."

Only with respect to these latter and holders of permits "for family reasons," the consolidated text on immigration – the intervener states – guarantees equality of treatment, "operating as a special prevailing or integrative rule that defuses the alleged constitutional conflict without the need to annul Article 7 of Law no. 55 of 2024, which maintains its validity and reasonableness for the residual cases," namely non-EU citizens lacking such privileged status.

For the latter, therefore, the State would maintain the competence to regulate their access to the national market, "subject to the constraints deriving from specific international agreements."

4.– On March 25, 2026, the parties filed a defense brief in reply to what was argued by the President of the Council of Ministers, insisting on the acceptance of the questions.

Considerations of Law

5.– By the order indicated in the epigraph (reg. ord. no. 234 of 2025), the Court of Milan, sitting as a labour court, doubts the constitutional legitimacy of Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of 2024, due to conflict with Articles 3(1), 4(1), 35(1), 10(2), and 117(1) of the Constitution, the latter in reference to Article 10 of the ILO Convention no. 143 of 1975, to Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC on the status of long-term residents, and to Article 5, together with recitals 2 and 3, of Directive 2018/958/EU on access to professions, in the part in which it requires foreign citizens legally residing in Italy, for the purpose of registration in the professional registry of pedagogists and that of socio-pedagogical professional educators, the additional prerequisite of the existence of the condition of reciprocity.

The questions of constitutional legitimacy have arisen within the scope of an anti-discrimination civil action under Article 28 of Legislative Decree no. 150 of 2011, brought by CGIL Lombardy, ASGI APS, APN, and NAGA Association against the Ministry of Justice, for the purpose of ascertaining, and consequently removing, the discrimination operated by the administration with the request, addressed to candidates of non-EU citizenship, to declare the existence of the condition of reciprocity regarding the application for registration in the registries of educational professions.

6.– The President of the Council of Ministers, having intervened in the proceedings, has preliminarily excepted the inadmissibility of the questions.

6.1.– In the opinion of the intervener, they would be devoid of relevance due to their premature nature, in light of the transitional phase in which the challenged discipline is still found and, on a factual level, the absence of denials already expressed towards foreign citizens of third countries requesting registration in the registries.

6.1.1.– The exception does not hit the mark.

By constant orientation of constitutional jurisprudence, an incidental question is premature and, therefore, inadmissible, "if the application of the challenged rule is only eventual or successive, which excludes the current relevance of the question itself" (judgment no. 139 of 2020).

In the case under examination, however, although the establishment of the registries of socio-pedagogical professions is not yet fully operational, the challenged rule has already received implementation, given that, by virtue of it, citizens of third countries are required to declare the existence of the requirement of the condition of reciprocity in completing the application forms for registration in said registries. The vulnus complained of is therefore current and, from the perspective of the referring court, consists in the discriminatory nature of the condition imposed by law. Consequently, "that merely theoretical, abstract, or premature character" (judgment no. 58 of 2020) that would make the question of constitutional legitimacy devoid of relevance must be excluded.

6.2.– According to the intervener, moreover, the questions would be inadmissible as the discriminatory action promoted in the a quo judgment would not be "suitable to constitute the procedural vehicle through which to challenge primary rank norms," given that, should this Court accept the proposed questions of constitutional legitimacy and the challenged rule be expunged from the system, "the outcome of the judgment would not be the acceptance of the claim but probably a declaration of cessation of the matter of contention."

6.2.1.– This assumption must also be rejected.

With judgment no. 15 of 2024, this Court outlined the essential features of the anti-discrimination judgment referred to in Article 28 of Legislative Decree no. 150 of 2011.

In particular, it was affirmed that, by establishing it, "the legislator […] intended to provide protection for the fundamental right not to suffer discrimination whenever, by reason of conduct, behavior, or acts put in place by private individuals or by the public administration, this right is violated. […] In the event that […] the discrimination performed by the public administration finds its origin in the law, as it is the latter that imposes, without alternatives, that specific conduct, then the discriminatory activity is attributable to the public administration only indirectly, since at the root of the administrative choices that have been ascertained to be discriminatory lies, precisely, the law […]. In such occurrences, the ordinary judge cannot then order the modification of regulatory rules that are reproductive of legislative rules, as they would order the public administration to adopt regulatory acts conflicting with the law that has not been removed. The exercise of such a power is, therefore, subject to the acceptance by this Court of the question of constitutional legitimacy on the legislative rule that the judge considers to be the cause of the discriminatory nature of the regulatory act."

Precisely in light of the aforementioned pronouncement, which concerned a discriminatory conduct of the public administration originated by a regulatory act substantially reproductive of a regional legislative rule, the court a quo deemed itself precluded from the possibility of directly ordering the administration to remove, or modify, acts reproductive of Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of 2024, without the prior acceptance, by this Court, of the question of constitutional legitimacy having as its object the same primary rank rule considered by the referring court to be the source of the discrimination.

Judgment no. 15 of 2024, cited, moreover, by the state defense itself, expresses the principle according to which, when it is the law that imposes, without alternatives, a specific administrative conduct that turns out to be discriminatory, the exercise of the ordering power of the judge is subject to the acceptance of the question of constitutional legitimacy on the legislative rule from which the discrimination originates.

This is what happens in the present case, where, in execution of Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of 2024, the commissioners in charge of accepting applications for registration in the registries of educational professions require all non-EU foreigners, in the forms prepared for the application for registration in such registries, to attest to the existence of the condition of reciprocity in the country of origin.

Nor do the considerations made by the State Attorney's Office on the possible repercussions of a judgment of acceptance on the a quo judgment appear decisive, in the sense of the non-relevance of the question of constitutional legitimacy arisen in the anti-discrimination judgment.

By constant constitutional jurisprudence, in fact, "the judgment of relevance requires only the demonstration of the necessity, on the part of the referring court, to make application of the challenged rule in the a quo process, and does not require instead the demonstration that the acceptance of the question is actually capable of affecting the outcome of the process itself. What is essential is, rather, the demonstration that an eventual acceptance would affect at least the motivational process that leads to the decision" (judgment no. 121 of 2025).

This is what the referring court did, adequately motivating the relevance of the questions and the necessity, in the case, of a constitutional legitimacy review by this Court.

7.– Coming now to the merits of the questions, they concern the condition of reciprocity, required of foreign citizens of non-EU countries, for the purpose of registration in the registry of the profession of pedagogist and that of socio-pedagogical professional educator, necessary for the exercise of said activities.

7.1.– As it is a special reciprocity condition with respect to the general one of Article 16 of the *Preleggi*, inserted ex novo in the context of the transformation of educational professions into professional order professions that occurred through Law no. 55 of 2024, it is worth briefly reconstructing the overall evolution of the sector's discipline.

7.2.– The legislator dealt for the first time with the figures of pedagogist and socio-pedagogical professional educator with Law no. 205 of 2017, whose Article 1(595), for the attribution of such qualifications, required only the attainment of the university degrees indicated therein, without prejudice to the different (and simplified) methods of acquisition of the qualification provided for, on a transitional basis, by the subsequent paragraph 597 in favor of those who had already matured specific skills by the date of entry into force of the law.

7.3.– Subsequently, Law no. 55 of 2024 provided for the establishment of the Order of pedagogical and educational professions as a non-economic public body with the task of equipping the categories in question with a single code of ethics, taking care of the maintenance of the respective registries, established pursuant to Article 5(1 and 2) of the same law, and ensuring the continuing education of those registered.

7.3.1.– Based on Article 6(2) of the law in question, said Order must be established by decree of the Minister of Justice – which, as of now, does not appear to have been adopted yet – with which, as established by the subsequent paragraph 4, the relative operating methods, the provisions on its internal organization, and the rules necessary for the first application phase must also be established.

7.3.2.– Article 7, specifically the subject, regarding letter a) of paragraph 1, of the questions of constitutional legitimacy under examination today, sets out the conditions for registration in the two registries, which has become necessary for the practice of the professions in question (referred to in Articles 2(3) and 4(1)(c)), subordinating it to the possession of the following requirements: "a) being an Italian citizen or a citizen of a European Union member state or of a State with which the condition of reciprocity applies in this matter; b) not having received criminal convictions that have become final for crimes that entail prohibition from practicing the profession; c) having obtained the qualification to practice the profession; d) having residence in Italy or, for Italian citizens residing abroad, demonstrating residence abroad while in the service, as pedagogists or socio-pedagogical professional educators, of national entities or companies operating outside the territory of the State."

7.3.3.– In the first implementation phase, Article 10 of Law no. 55 of 2024 provided that the presidents of the courts of the capitals of the regions and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano, within thirty days from the date of entry into force of the law, appoint a commissioner from among the magistrates in service, who will provide for the formation of the registries (paragraph 1). The commissioner, within ninety days from the publication of the list of those entitled, in possession of the relative educational qualifications and who have submitted an application for registration by the deadline of March 31, 2027 (as most recently extended by Article 6(1-bis) of Decree-Law no. 200 of December 31, 2025, containing "Urgent provisions regarding regulatory deadlines," converted, with amendments, into Law no. 26 of February 27, 2026), calls for the elections of the presidents of the registries and provides for the other necessary fulfillments, preparatory to the establishment of the regional orders and those of the autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano (see Article 10(2), first sentence, Law 55 of 2024).

7.3.4.– Until the first formation of the list of those entitled to vote, the possibility remains to practice the professions of pedagogist and socio-pedagogical educator, even if the application for registration has not been submitted, by virtue of what is established by Article 6(9) of Decree-Law no. 117 of August 8, 2025 (Urgent measures regarding justice), converted, with amendments, into Law no. 148 of October 3, 2025.

7.4.– Once the new regulatory framework is fully operational, the non-EU citizen who intends to perform the professional activity of psychologist or socio-pedagogical educator must register, therefore, in the relevant registries and provide, for this purpose, a declaration pursuant to Presidential Decree no. 445 of 2000, which certifies, in addition to the possession of the degrees and the necessary skills, the existence of the condition of reciprocity in the country of origin.

8.– Having summarized the reference regulatory framework in this way, we can examine the censures formulated by the referring Court regarding Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of 2024, which requires all non-EU citizens to meet the existence of the repeatedly mentioned condition of reciprocity, starting from those relating to Articles 3(1), 4(1), and 35(1) of the Constitution, which can be considered unitarily.

9.– The right to work is listed by constitutional jurisprudence among the fundamental rights (in this sense, among many, judgments no. 203 and no. 148 of 2024), as a "right of freedom of the human person, which is expressed in the choice and in the way of exercising the work activity" (judgment no. 45 of 1965), strictly correlated to the exercise of the individual's professionalism and the possibility of fully carrying out the work activity corresponding to their skills.

9.1.– From the recognition of the right to work and the "freedom to choose a work activity" (judgment no. 102 of 1968) follows, therefore, for the legislator, the duty not to introduce rules that exclude such a right or that place, directly or indirectly, "discriminatory limits" on such freedom (so judgment no. 45 of 1965; in an analogous sense, judgment no. 61 of 1965, which is expressed in terms of a "right guarded by the prohibition of creating and allowing to persist in the system rules that place or allow to place limits on such freedom or that deny such freedom directly or indirectly").

9.2.– From this, however – as this Court has recognized since a long time ago – "it does not follow that it is impossible for the ordinary legislator to dictate provisions that specify limits and conditions inherent to the exercise of the right or that attribute to the administrative authority powers of control for the protection of other interests and other social needs equally made the object of constitutional protection" (again judgment no. 102 of 1968).

In that case, however, by constant constitutional jurisprudence, a proportionality review is imposed with respect to every legislative, administrative, or judicial measure that involves a restriction of the constitutional rights of the person (ex aliis, judgments no. 203 and no. 46 of 2024; no. 24 of 2019), rights among which the right to work falls, in the declinations illustrated above.

10.– According to this scheme of judgment, therefore, the censures moved to the condition of reciprocity required for the purpose of registration in the registries of the professions in question must be evaluated.

10.1.– This Court has already dealt with the operability of such constitutional guarantees with respect to registration in professional registries.

In reiterating that Article 4 of the Constitution recognizes "a right to the choice of the work activity and the way of exercising it, as a fundamental means of implementation of the interest in the development of their personality" (judgment no. 70 of 2025), it recognized a violation in the prohibition of cancellation from the registry for a lawyer against whom a disciplinary proceeding is initiated.

In particular, on that occasion, it was affirmed that such a prohibition affected in a disproportionate manner the freedom to work of the lawyer who requested to be canceled from the registry, having the intention of ceasing the practice of the profession to possibly undertake a different work activity for the performance of which membership in the order institution was an obstacle. Such a declaration was imposed in consideration of the fact that "for a provision limiting a right protected by the Constitution to be considered legitimate, it is not sufficient that the measure it provides for is suitable to give implementation to another interest worthy of similar protection, as it must respect the canon of proportionality and adequacy, by virtue of which public purposes must be realized with the least possible impact on individual freedoms (ex aliis, judgment no. 20 of 2019)" (again judgment no. 70 of 2025).

10.2.– The same principles cannot but be recognized also towards non-EU foreigners, legally residing, in possession of a title that allows them to carry out work activity; they find themselves, in fact, under the profile of Articles 3(1), 4(1), and 35(1) of the Constitution, in a position comparable to that of Italian citizens and European citizens.

In this regard, this Court has long recognized that "[i]f it is indubitable that it falls within the discretion of the legislator to establish the requirements that non-EU workers must have to obtain the authorizations that allow them to stay and work in the territory of the Republic, it is also true that its exercise must be respectful of the limits marked by constitutional precepts. Irrespective of the respect for other parameters, to be in harmony with Article 3 of the Constitution the regulation must first of all be consistent with criteria of intrinsic reasonableness (cf. judgments no. 62 and no. 283 of 1994)" (judgment no. 78 of 2005), as well as, it must be added, consistent with the principle of proportionality, in compliance with the constitutional importance of the right affected.

10.3.– Within this framework, the specific condition of reciprocity introduced ex novo by the provision under examination for all non-EU foreigners must be scrutinized, including those legally residing in the national territory in possession of a title that qualifies them for the performance of work activity.

10.4.– This Court, although in a distant era, has already recognized that the prerequisite of reciprocity treatment for access to a profession (at the time, journalism) is not, considered in itself, constitutionally illegitimate provided that it responds to canons of reasonableness (judgment no. 11 of 1968).

In today's case, neither the preparatory work nor the parliamentary debate allows to infer the specific public purposes – in theory integrating another interest worthy of protection – underlying the normative choice to introduce, among the requirements for registration in the registry of pedagogists and that of socio-pedagogical professional educators, the condition of reciprocity for non-EU citizens.

In this regard, the Attorney's Office indicates, indeed, the "protection of the national interest in the relations between States," specifically recognized in the protection of Italian professionals abroad. This purpose, although legitimate, which as such goes beyond the perimeter of defining the requirements inherent to the necessary competence and professionalism, is pursued however with a measure, the condition of reciprocity, which – in imposing the verification of the existence in the non-EU State of an analogous discipline of the specific sector – reveals itself not entirely suitable to pursue the goal.

In this regard, it is worth considering that the professional sector in question is still "young" and presents – as in our country, as also at a comparative level – a fragmentation of discipline resulting from non-uniform choices, affecting also on the qualification level.

As confirmation of the normative parcelization and the uncertainties that still surround these new professional profiles, the comparison with what is provided, in a non-distant time, by Article 2(3) of the aforementioned Ministerial Decree of March 13, 2018, for the analogous figure of the professional educator also operating in the health sector, for whom, for the purpose of registration in the respective registry, the existence of the reciprocity condition is not required but only the "respect of the regulation regarding entry and stay of citizens of other nationalities in the territory of the Italian State" is worth making.

10.5.– That said, as to the suitability of the reciprocity condition to pursue the protection of national interests recalled by the Attorney's Office as a justifying ratio of the challenged provision, it must be emphasized that such protection might not be guaranteed by it whenever, to the Italian citizen, an equal work possibility is not ensured in the non-EU country for reasons that, however, disregard their nationality and that may depend on the heterogeneous and disorganized regulatory framework, also under the qualification profile, to which reference was made above.

It is not implausible, in fact, to imagine that – at least until uniform qualifications spread at the international level – an Italian citizen, in possession of the qualification to practice the professions of pedagogist or socio-pedagogical professional educator, may be inhibited from performing the corresponding activities abroad, for the fact that the latter are simply titled differently in another country and there require the possession of qualifications only differently denominated.

10.5.1.– Moreover, from the introduction of the condition of reciprocity, a prejudice to the protection of other public interests relevant at the national level could also derive, such as the one to benefit from the skills available in the Italian territory, skills not infrequently even the result of a path of studies completed in our country.

10.6.– The provision in question reveals itself, at the same time, in conflict with the canon of proportionality in the strict sense, as it hinders and limits – without performing an adequate balancing between the means employed and the purpose pursued – the free expression of the professional activity of the non-EU citizen legally residing and by virtue of a title that qualifies them to work. Although having acquired the title to perform one of the professions in question and, therefore, being in possession of the requirements requested to exercise the activity in question, the interested party could find themselves, in fact, in the impossibility of doing so for reasons that, as has already been set out, rest on a level completely different from that of professional requirements.

10.6.1.– Such a conclusion is even more evident where referred to the situation of the foreigner who is already exercising, perhaps even for a long time, the professions in question, by virtue of the aforementioned transitional regime of Article 6(9) of Decree-Law no. 117 of 2025, as converted. Anyone who found themselves in such a condition would have to, in fact, interrupt their work activity *ex abrupto* with the entry into force of the new discipline.

10.6.2.– Finally, still with respect to the canon of proportionality, it is not superfluous to add that the measure under examination entails a very burdensome burden, also in terms of criminal liability, for the regular foreigner in possession of a valid residence permit that already allows them to work under the conditions provided therein: at their expense is imposed, in fact, the burden of attesting through self-certification that they are a citizen "of a State with which the condition of reciprocity applies in this matter."

It is an evidentiary burden that, evidently, turns out to be disproportionate with respect to the cognitive capacities of the individual worker, by reason of the foreseeable difficulties of access to information relating to the regulation of the country of origin, which, as stated before, can be characterized by great fragmentation.

11.– In light of the above, Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of 2024 must be declared constitutionally illegitimate for conflict with Articles 3(1), 4(1), and 35(1) of the Constitution, in the part in which it requires the foreign citizen legally residing in Italy, in possession of a title that qualifies them for work in the forms and conditions provided for by the title itself, the additional prerequisite of the existence of the condition of reciprocity for the purpose of registration in the professional registry of pedagogists and that of socio-pedagogical professional educators.

12.– The remaining questions are absorbed.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 7(1)(a) of Law no. 55 of April 15, 2024 (Provisions concerning the regulation of pedagogical and educational professions and the establishment of the related professional registries), in the part in which it requires the foreign citizen legally residing in Italy, in possession of a title that qualifies them for work in the forms and conditions provided for by the title itself, the additional prerequisite of the existence of the condition of reciprocity for the purpose of registration in the professional registry of pedagogists and that of socio-pedagogical professional educators.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on April 15, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Reporting Judge

Igor DI BERNARDINI, Chancellor

Deposited in the Registry on July 3, 2026