JUDGMENT NO. 121

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, Massimo LUCIANI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has delivered the following

JUDGMENT

in the proceedings regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of August 1, 2003 (Electronic Communications Code), brought by the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Tuscany, and Umbria in the proceedings pending between the Regional Association of Agrarian Universities of Lazio and others, by order dated September 15, 2025, registered under No. 233 in the register of orders 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 50, special series, of the year 2025.

Having examined the notices of appearance of S. T. and F. M., of Infrastrutture wireless italiane spa, as well as the intervention filed by the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard Judge rapporteur Marco D’Alberti at the public hearing on May 6, 2026;

having heard legal counsels Francesco Saverio Cantella and Jacopo D’Auria for Infrastrutture wireless italiane spa, Emilia Pulcini for S. T. and F. M., as well as State Attorney Maria Luisa Spina for the President of the Council of Ministers;

having deliberated in chambers on May 6, 2026.

Legal Facts

1.– By order dated September 15, 2025, registered under No. 233 in the register of orders 2025, the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Umbria, and Tuscany raised, with reference to Arts. 3, 9, 24, and 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of August 1, 2003 (Electronic Communications Code), which, for the construction of high-speed electronic communications infrastructure in areas burdened by civic uses, excludes the need for the authorization referred to in Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of June 16, 1927 (Conversion into law of Royal Decree No. 751 of May 22, 1924, regarding the reorganization of civic uses in the Kingdom, of Royal Decree No. 1484 of August 28, 1924, amending Art. 26 of Royal Decree No. 751 of May 22, 1924, and of Royal Decree No. 895 of May 16, 1926, extending the terms assigned by Art. 2 of Royal Decree-Law No. 751 of May 22, 1924).

The challenged provision also establishes that, in cases of installation of the infrastructure referred to in Arts. 44, 45, 46, 47, and 49 of the same Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 «and for the implementation of initiatives aimed at upgrading infrastructure and ensuring the functionality of networks and the operation and continuity of telecommunications services, the landscape protection constraint referred to in Article 142, paragraph 1, letter h), of the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape» shall not apply, as provided by Legislative Decree No. 42 of January 22, 2004 (Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, pursuant to Article 10 of Law No. 137 of July 6, 2002).

2.– The referring Commissioner reports that the Regional Association of Agrarian Universities of Lazio (hereinafter: ARUAL) has denounced the unlawful occupation of collective properties, located in the Municipality of Valmontone, by the company Infrastrutture wireless italiane spa (hereinafter: Inwit spa). In the proceedings initiated ex officio by the Commissioner, the Agrarian University of Valmontone entered an appearance and requested the dismissal of the appeal, arguing that it had leased a portion of land to Inwit spa for the purpose of installing its electronic communication equipment. Although these works are situated on collective property, no authorization would be required under the challenged provision.

2.1.– The issue is argued to be relevant to the resolution of the proceedings.

The unambiguous literal meaning of the challenged provision would oblige the court to «acknowledge the creation of a transmission network», whereas, should the questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Art. 54-bis of the Electronic Communications Code be upheld, the works located on collective properties should be considered unlawful, as they were carried out in the absence of authorization.

2.2.– With the first set of challenges, the referring judge claims the violation of Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution.

The challenged provision was introduced by Art. 18, paragraph 7, of Decree-Law No. 13 of February 24, 2023, containing «Urgent provisions for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) and the National Complementary Investment Plan to the PNRR (PNC), as well as for the implementation of cohesion policies and the Common Agricultural Policy», converted, with amendments, into Law No. 41 of April 21, 2023. According to the referring judge, said Art. 18, paragraph 7, lacks the prerequisites of necessity and urgency, «concerning the planning [of] works of which it is unknown if and when they will be realized in the future», whereas «extraordinary situations justifying recourse to emergency decrees should pre-exist the exercise of legislative power». Furthermore, the legislative intervention in question, being «the result of a "mere political choice” of the executive», would present no connotation of urgency.

2.3.– The challenged provision would also violate Art. 9 of the Constitution, conflicting with the environmental protection function attributed to civic uses by Art. 1, first paragraph, letter h), of Law No. 431 of August 8, 1985 (Conversion into law, with amendments, of Decree-Law No. 312 of June 27, 1985, containing urgent provisions for the protection of areas of particular environmental interest. Supplements to Article 82 of the Decree of the President of the Republic No. 616 of July 24, 1977); by Art. 142, paragraph 1, letter h), of Legislative Decree No. 42 of 2004, and by Art. 3, paragraph 6, of Law No. 168 of November 20, 2017 (Regulations concerning collective domains).

The referring judge emphasizes that the environmental protection function of civic uses has been recognized both by constitutional jurisprudence (referencing judgments No. 367 of 2007, No. 46 of 1995, and No. 133 of 1993 and order No. 316 of 1998), and by ordinary legitimacy jurisprudence (citing Court of Cassation, United Civil Sections, judgment No. 3811 of February 16, 2011): a function that would be prejudiced by the challenged provision, which, on one hand, excludes the need for the authorization referred to in Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of 1927, and on the other, excludes the application of the landscape constraint.

2.4.– Art. 54-bis of the Electronic Communications Code would also violate the right of defense enshrined in Art. 24 of the Constitution.

The challenged provision would result in the indefinite "privatization” of collective assets, and the communities, to whom the corresponding rights belong, would be deprived of the possibility of opposing the construction of such infrastructure, as well as obtaining the restitution of assets in the event of abandonment of the works, with a substantial impediment to the exercise of the right to legal action guaranteed by Art. 24 of the Constitution, as no subsequent protection or compensatory measures are provided.

2.5.– According to the referring judge, Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 would also violate Art. 3 of the Constitution regarding the principle of equality, since only companies intending to install telecommunications (hereinafter: TLC) networks would be exempt from the obligation to comply with the rules of public transparency, unlike what occurs for the realization of other works, even of greater importance, such as hospitals, highways, and schools, which must instead be subject to such procedures.

2.6.– The violation of Art. 3 of the Constitution is also claimed with reference to the principle of reasonableness, in light of the arguments contained in this Court’s judgments No. 310 of 2006 and No. 345 of 1997, which declared the constitutional illegitimacy of regional regulations that—in relation to certain categories of public works—provided for similar abstract assessments of compatibility with civic uses.

In these rulings, unreasonableness was identified in the assimilation, made by the regional legislator, between the collective enjoyment of land subject to civic use and the interest in carrying out works functional to the transport of electricity on the same. Certain categories of works would thus be removed from state regulation aimed at ensuring the community’s interest in the conservation of civic uses and the safeguarding of the environment and landscape.

Similarly, in the case at hand, the possibility of installing communication networks on lands burdened by civic uses would imply an abstract assessment of the compatibility of the works, that is, without considering the actual impact they might have. This would also conflict with the principles of horizontal subsidiarity and democracy.

3.– The President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General's Office, intervened in these proceedings with a filing deposited on December 30, 2025, requesting that the questions of constitutional legitimacy be declared inadmissible or, in any case, unfounded.

3.1.– The State defense premises that the challenged provision was introduced within the scope of urgent measures for the implementation of the PNRR, with the goal of simplifying and accelerating the realization of high-speed electronic communication infrastructure, considered at both the Union and national level as tools of strategic relevance for participated and effective social, economic, cultural, and commercial development.

3.2.– As a preliminary matter, the State defense objects to the inadmissibility of the questions due to a lack of reasoning regarding their relevance, since the lower court did not illustrate the reasons why the challenged provision would affect the civic use existing on the collective properties located in the Municipality of Valmontone.

On the contrary, the State Attorney General's Office believes that the challenged provision does not at all exclude the maintenance of the civic use, since—in establishing the compatibility of the infrastructure with it—it would presuppose its preservation. Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 would be aimed at speeding up coverage in areas still poorly served by high-speed communication networks, considered tools of strategic importance at both the Union and national level.

Moreover, the referral order completely omits a description of the administrative events from which the dispute originated. The lower court limited itself to stating that a portion of land was leased to Inwit spa for the installation of the equipment.

Again as a preliminary matter, the President of the Council of Ministers objects to the inadmissibility of the question raised with reference to Art. 3 of the Constitution, regarding the principle of equality, due to deficient reasoning concerning the denounced disparity of treatment, and in particular, the generic indication of the cases put forward for comparison.

3.3.– On the merits, the State defense considers the questions of constitutional legitimacy to be unfounded.

3.3.1.– Regarding the denounced violation of Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, the question would be unfounded, as the prerequisites for recourse to emergency decrees derive from the need to implement the stringent provisions adopted at the European level for the completion of TLC networks.

3.3.2.– With reference to the conflict with Art. 9 of the Constitution, the President of the Council of Ministers believes that the challenged provision does not eliminate environmental protection in an absolute sense, but balances it with the public interest in the realization of digital infrastructure. This would not result in any unreasonable compression of the right to enjoy resources, nor of compliance with environmental and landscape constraints, since such assessments can still be carried out within the scope of the authorization for the construction of the infrastructure.

3.3.3.– Regarding the violation of Art. 24 of the Constitution, the State Attorney General's Office believes that Art. 54-bis of the Electronic Communications Code does not preclude access to justice and the right of defense of the communities holding collective properties, which could still initiate legal action to protect their rights, even in relation to the potential environmental or property impact of the works in question.

4.– With a filing deposited on December 24, 2025, the company Inwit spa entered an appearance in these proceedings, requesting that the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the referring judge be declared inadmissible or unfounded.

4.1.– As a preliminary matter, the party objects to the inadmissibility of the questions of constitutional legitimacy for lack of relevance, considering the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses.

It is pointed out that, pursuant to Art. 29 of Law No. 1766 of 1927, the special jurisdiction of the Commissioners for the Settlement of Civic Uses exists when the public domain nature of the soil is contested, or in any case, when the dispute presupposes the necessity, even in the absence of an explicit contestation of the qualitas soli, of a preliminary assessment regarding the existence of a civic right on the lands subject to the proceedings.

Conversely, in the case at hand, the public domain status of the area on which the TLC infrastructure is to be built was never contested, neither by the referring Commissioner nor by ARUAL. Indeed, the issues debated in the lower proceedings would be independent of the assessment of the qualitas soli. The claims formulated in said proceedings should have been proposed before the ordinary court (regarding profiles concerning the validity of the lease contract and the amount of the rent) or the administrative court (regarding the assessment of the illegitimacy of the authorization and the ratification of the contract by the Agrarian University of Valmontone).

Such disputes would remain extraneous to the commissioner's jurisdiction, since they would not require the assessment of qualitas soli, nor would they concern the performance of other operations referred to the Commissioner.

4.2.– On the merits, the appearing party considers the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the Commissioner to be unfounded.

4.2.1.– Regarding the denounced violation of Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, Inwit spa deduces that Art. 18, paragraph 7, of Decree-Law No. 13 of 2023, as converted, which introduced the challenged Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, would be consistent with the goal, announced in the preamble of the same decree-law and pursued by all the provisions composing it, of timely implementing interventions financed under the PNRR, simplifying and accelerating the related administrative procedures.

The challenged provision would be homogeneous with respect to the others concerning the same subject of digital infrastructure, which constitute priority objectives of the development plans approved at both the national and European Union level. The regulation introduced by Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 would meet the need to simplify and accelerate the authorization procedures for the installation of TLC plants, pursuant to Arts. 43 and following of the same Electronic Communications Code.

Recourse to emergency decrees would not, therefore, be unreasonable, considered the homogeneity of the challenged provision with respect to the function overall pursued by the normative act in which it is inserted.

4.2.2.– Likewise, the challenge referring to the violation of Art. 9 of the Constitution would be unfounded.

The party observes that the environmental and landscape value of the civic asset does not exclude the possibility that the destination of the related lands may be changed. Constitutional jurisprudence itself has held that the change of destination has the purpose of maintaining a use useful to the community that remains the holder thereof (referencing judgments No. 228 of 2021, No. 71 of 2020, No. 178 and No. 113 of 2018, and No. 103 of 2017). As affirmed in particular by this Court’s judgment No. 103 of 2024, a change of destination aimed at the installation of renewable energy production plants would also be compatible with the public vocation of the collective asset, certainly much more invasive than a base radio station occupying an area equal to 50 square meters.

4.2.3.– The party's defense also emphasizes that, pursuant to Arts. 43, paragraph 4, and 51, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, electronic communication infrastructure is assimilated to primary urbanization and public utility works and can therefore be located in any part of the territory, regardless of urban planning designation.

Mobile and fixed broadband TLC networks, in fact, satisfy a general need of the community, considering their necessity for conducting a series of activities at a distance, including those instrumental to the agricultural and silvo-pastoral use of the goods in question. For these reasons, the State promotes their development through economic incentives and regulations that facilitate their widest diffusion (referencing Art. 4, paragraph 7-bis, of Decree-Law No. 60 of May 7, 2024, containing «Further urgent provisions on cohesion policies», converted, with amendments, into Law No. 95 of July 4, 2024, and the Directive of the President of the Council of Ministers of November 2, 2023, containing «Lines of action in administrative procedures regarding the construction of public communication networks related to interventions to be carried out for the implementation of the PNRR»).

The challenged provision would, therefore, express a reasonable ex ante assessment regarding the instrumentality of the change in the use of the civic asset to the satisfaction of the interests of the reference community. The interventions regulated by the challenged provision should be considered compatible with aspects concerning environmental and landscape protection by virtue of their structural characteristics (taking into account the small extent of the areas occupied) and the inability to preclude the exercise of rights on the remaining portion of the public land.

4.2.4.– Regarding the challenge related to the violation of the principle of equality, the party's defense objects primarily to its inadmissibility, since the order does not indicate the legislative regulation to be compared with the challenged provision.

On the merits, the question would in any case be unfounded, because the situations being compared are entirely heterogeneous. Indeed, broadband TLC infrastructure, although assimilated to primary urbanization and public utility works, remains the property of the private entity that builds it. Furthermore, the challenged Art. 54-bis would find its justification in light of the needs for speed and procedural streamlining connected to the realization of the TLC network, as well as the structural and dimensional characteristics that this category of works presents.

4.2.5.– In the party's view, the violation of Art. 24 of the Constitution is also not configurable.

Once the destination of the infrastructure for the satisfaction of needs of general interest of the population is recognized, no impediment to the exercise of civic use rights would be configurable, nor would there be a need to protect the related legal positions, since no injury would occur. The community holding the rights of civic use would, in fact, retain the possibility of representing its needs within the scope of the procedure aimed at issuing the authorization, possibly challenging it before the administrative judge.

5.– With a filing deposited on December 29, 2025, S. T. and F. M. entered an appearance in these proceedings, as parties intervening in the commissioner proceedings, requesting the upholding of the questions raised by the referring judge.

5.1.– The parties report that they intervened in the lower proceedings in their capacity as users and members of the community of inhabitants of the Municipality of Valmontone, in order to denounce the violation of civic rights and collective property, as well as to request the liquidator Commissioner to evaluate the relevance and non-manifest groundlessness of the question of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 54-bis of the Electronic Communications Code, for violation of Art. 9 of the Constitution.

5.2.– In this regard, the parties recall the constitutional jurisprudence that has affirmed the environmental and landscape value of areas of collective property and the consequent necessity of their conservation (referencing judgments No. 236 of 2022, No. 228 of 2021, No. 71 of 2020, No. 210 of 2014, No. 310 of 2006, No. 46 of 1995, and No. 391 of 1989).

The environmental value of collective property would take on specific importance in the procedure provided by Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of 1927. The regulation characterizing the legal regime of circulation of areas burdened by civic use would have been unreasonably bypassed by the challenged provision.

5.3.– The parties believe the question raised with reference to Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution is also well-founded, due to the lack of prerequisites justifying recourse to emergency decrees.

5.4.– Furthermore, the parties share the arguments adduced by the referring judge in support of the violation of Art. 3 of the Constitution, as well as Art. 24 of the Constitution, for the prejudice to the right of defense of the holders of collective properties.

6.– Pursuant to Art. 6 of the Supplementary Rules for Proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the National Federation of Collective Domains - Paolo Grossi and Pietro Nervi, in the capacity of amicus curiae, filed a written opinion, admitted by presidential decree on March 25, 2026, in which it made considerations in support of the validity of the challenges raised by the referring judge.

Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 would result in the removal of collective property from its natural vocation and its special legal regime of protection, neglecting the environmental value inherent in collective assets, in contrast with Art. 9 of the Constitution.

The amicus curiae emphasized that civic uses contribute to environmental protection in that their exercise and the substantial unavailability of the asset would allow the conservation of the land in its agricultural and silvo-pastoral destination, which should remain intact both for current holders and for future generations.

The challenged provision would also violate Art. 24 of the Constitution because it would not allow any right of defense to the communities that are holders of the rights of civic use.

Furthermore, there would be a violation of Art. 3 of the Constitution both in terms of equality and reasonableness, since the realization of TLC infrastructure would be regulated in an unjustifiably different manner compared to the generality of other works on lands burdened by civic uses, works which can be realized only in compliance with the specific regime of collective property.

Regarding the violation of Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, the amicus curiae deduces the absence of the prerequisites of necessity and urgency for the adoption of Decree-Law No. 13 of 2023, as converted.

Legal Considerations

7.– With the order indicated in the epigraph (reg. ord. No. 233 of 2025), the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Umbria, and Tuscany raises, with reference to Arts. 3, 9, 24, and 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, introduced by Art. 18, paragraph 7, of Decree-Law No. 13 of 2023, as converted.

For the construction of high-speed electronic communication infrastructure in areas burdened by civic uses, the challenged provision excludes, in the first part, the necessity of the authorization for the change of destination of use referred to in Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of 1927.

The same provision also establishes, in the second part, that in cases of installation of the infrastructure referred to in Arts. 44, 45, 46, 47, and 49 of the same Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 «and for the implementation of initiatives aimed at upgrading infrastructure and ensuring the functionality of networks and the operation and continuity of telecommunications services, the landscape protection constraint referred to in Article 142, paragraph 1, letter h), of the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, of Legislative Decree No. 42 of January 22, 2004, shall not apply».

8.– The violation of Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution is denounced in the first place, since Art. 18, paragraph 7, of Decree-Law No. 13 of 2023, as converted, which introduced Art. 54-bis of the Electronic Communications Code, would lack the prerequisites of necessity and urgency.

Art. 9 of the Constitution would also be violated, as the challenged provision would conflict with the environmental protection function attributed to civic uses by Art. 1, first paragraph, letter h), of Law No. 431 of 1985; by Art. 142, paragraph 1, letter h), of Legislative Decree No. 42 of 2004, as well as by Art. 3, paragraph 6, of Law No. 168 of 2017: a function that would be prejudiced by the frequently referenced Art. 54-bis, which, on one hand, excludes the necessity of the authorization referred to in Art. 12 cited, and on the other, excludes the application of the landscape constraint.

The referring judge also identifies a conflict with Art. 24 of the Constitution, as the challenged provision would end up depriving the communities, to whom the corresponding rights belong, of the possibility of opposing the construction of such infrastructure, as well as obtaining the restitution of assets in the event of abandonment of the works.

Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 would also violate Art. 3 of the Constitution regarding the principle of equality, since only companies intending to install TLC networks would be exonerated from procedural constraints, unlike what occurs for the realization of other works (such as hospitals, highways, schools), for which observance of the aforementioned constraints is instead provided.

Finally, Art. 3 of the Constitution would be violated with reference to the principle of reasonableness, in that removing TLC networks from the regulations aimed at ensuring the community’s interest in the conservation of civic uses and the safeguarding of the environment and landscape would disregard the actual impact they may concretely have.

9.– As a preliminary matter, the exceptions of inadmissibility respectively raised by the State Attorney General's Office and by Inwit spa must be examined.

9.1.– The State defense has deduced, primarily, the defect in reasoning regarding the relevance of the questions of constitutional legitimacy, since the reasons why the challenged provision would affect the exercise of the civic use existing on the collective properties located in the Municipality of Valmontone were not illustrated. According to the State Attorney General's Office, in establishing the compatibility of the infrastructure with civic use, the challenged provision would presuppose its conservation and allow the speeding up of coverage in areas poorly served by high-speed TLC networks.

The exception is unfounded.

Such defensive allegation alludes, in fact, to the lack of harm of the challenged provision which, instead of eliminating the protection offered by civic uses, as believed by the lower court, would presuppose their maintenance. This is an exception that puts forward a different interpretation and a different prescriptive content of the provision in question, such as to exclude its conflict with constitutional parameters: therefore, it does not constitute a reason for the inadmissibility of the questions, but pertains to their hermeneutic prerequisites and thus to the merit assessment (judgments No. 119 of 2023, point 5 of the Legal Considerations, and No. 73 of 2023, point 5 of the Legal Considerations).

9.2.– Secondly, the State Attorney General's Office excepted the defect in reasoning on relevance, due to the lack of a description of the events subject to the dispute submitted for the examination of the referring Commissioner.

9.2.1.– Nor is this exception well-founded.

Even if in synthetic terms, the lower court reported that it must decide regarding the legitimacy of the occupation of lands of collective property, for the purpose of realizing TLC infrastructure, in application of the challenged provision.

The factual elements offered by the referring judge are therefore such as to allow this Court the external control of the relevance of the questions of constitutional legitimacy. Such verification does not extend to an autonomous examination of the elements that led the lower court to certain conclusions, this Court being able to review such assessment only if it appears absolutely devoid of foundation (among the most recent, judgments No. 171, No. 137, and No. 129 of 2025, No. 122 and No. 23 of 2024).

9.3.– Furthermore, the company Inwit spa excepted the inadmissibility of the questions due to the lack of jurisdiction of the referring liquidator Commissioner, since the dispute submitted for its examination would not require a preliminary assessment regarding the existence of a civic right on the lands subject to the proceedings.

The exception is unfounded.

9.3.1.– Constitutional jurisprudence is constant in affirming that the screening by the referring judge on the existence of the conditions of the action can be reviewed only where it is implausible (among many, judgments No. 129 and No. 105 of 2025, No. 4 of 2024, No. 193 and No. 150 of 2022, No. 240 of 2021, No. 224 and No. 168 of 2020).

The existence of jurisdiction is a prerequisite that concerns the legitimate initiation of the lower proceedings, the assessment of which is reserved to the referring judge, by virtue of the principle of autonomy of the constitutional judgment with respect to defects of the lower proceedings. For this reason, for the inadmissibility of the incidental question of constitutional legitimacy to be determined, the defect in the jurisdiction of the lower judge must be macroscopic and, therefore, detectable ictu oculi (with specific reference to jurisdiction, among many, judgments No. 135 of 2024, No. 156 and No. 101 of 2023, No. 68 of 2021, No. 267, No. 99 and No. 24 of 2020).

9.3.2.– In the case at hand, the referring judge reported being called to decide regarding the unlawful occupation of lands of collective property due to the installation of TLC infrastructure, highlighting also that «the de-classification from public domain status derives directly from the challenged law».

With reference to the claim for the release of property occupied sine titulo, for which the public domain status has been contested, even implicitly, the legitimacy jurisprudence has recognized that the preliminary assessment of the existence and extension of the right of civic use constitutes a logical-legal antecedent to the decision. Such assessment therefore attracts the dispute into the jurisdictional competence of the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses (Court of Cassation, United Civil Sections, judgment No. 33012 of December 20, 2018; similarly, on the possibility of an implicit contestation of qualitas soli to establish commissioner jurisdiction, Court of Cassation, United Civil Sections, order No. 31024 of November 7, 2023).

In light of these statements, the alleged defect of jurisdiction cannot be considered either macroscopic or manifest, and the exception of inadmissibility must be rejected.

10.– Conversely, the exception of inadmissibility of the question raised with reference to Art. 3 of the Constitution, for disparity of treatment, must be upheld.

According to constant constitutional jurisprudence, «the principle of equality expresses a judgment of relation by virtue of which equal situations must correspond to identical regulation and, conversely, differentiated regulations must be combined with different situations» (among many, judgments No. 164 of 2025, No. 7 of 2024, No. 43 of 2022, No. 276 of 2020 and No. 241 of 2014 and No. 89 of 1996; in the same sense, judgment No. 5 of 2000).

Therefore, for the purposes of the admissibility of the question, it is necessary that the lower judge, in denouncing a differentiated treatment of situations allegedly equal, indicate with sufficient precision what would be the «equal situations» to which a different regulation would correspond.

Conversely, the referral order does not indicate the legal provision with respect to which the challenged provision would configure an unjustified privilege. The lower judge limits himself to citing as a term of comparison the realization of other public works (generically identified as hospitals, highways, schools), without, however, anchoring such events to a specific regulation assumed as tertium comparationis. The indication of an adequate and homogeneous point of comparison, by which to evaluate the denounced violation of the principle of equality, is missing.

Therefore, the question of constitutional legitimacy raised with reference to Art. 3 of the Constitution, under the profile of disparity of treatment, must be declared inadmissible due to a lack of reasoning on non-manifest groundlessness.

11.– On the merits, among the different questions of constitutional legitimacy, the one raised with reference to Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, for the alleged lack of prerequisites for the adoption of the decree-law, as a rule has logical-legal priority.

It assumes a preliminary character, since it pertains to the correct exercise of the primary normative function and therefore configures itself as potentially absorbent in case of possible upholding (judgments No. 147 of 2025, No. 139 and No. 133 of 2024, No. 115 of 2020, No. 288 and No. 247 of 2019).

The question is unfounded.

11.1.– Constant jurisprudence of this Court has affirmed that, by reason of the elasticity of the clause referred to in Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, «[o]ne cannot predetermine [...] the extraordinary cases of necessity and urgency that legitimize recourse to this instrument» (judgments No. 147 of 2025 and No. 146 of 2024). The review of constitutional legitimacy, which must not overlap with that of the Government and Parliament (judgments No. 213 of 2021, No. 288, No. 97 and No. 33 of 2019, No. 137, No. 99 and No. 5 of 2018), is limited to cases of «evident lack» of prerequisites (thus starting from judgment No. 29 of 1995), to be found in light of indicators intrinsic and extrinsic to the challenged provisions (among many, judgments No. 147 of 2025, No. 146 of 2024, No. 33 of 2019, No. 5 of 2018, No. 93 of 2011, No. 128 of 2008 and No. 171 of 2007), regardless of any assessment regarding the reasonableness of the introduced regulation (again judgments No. 147 of 2025 and No. 171 of 2007).

It has also been recognized that the urgent necessity of providing may concern a plurality of norms united by the intent to confront extraordinary, complex, and varied situations, which require objectively heterogeneous interventions, pertaining to different matters (judgments No. 213 of 2021, No. 149 of 2020, No. 137 of 2018, No. 170 and No. 16 of 2017 and No. 32 of 2014), but aimed at the sole purpose of preparing urgent remedies for extraordinary situations that have arisen (judgments No. 213 of 2021, No. 244 of 2016 and No. 22 of 2012). In substance, for decree-laws with multiple content, what matters is the teleological profile, that is, the observance of the dominant ratio that inspires them (among many, judgments No. 213 and No. 30 of 2021, No. 115 of 2020, No. 154 of 2015 and No. 32 of 2014; order No. 34 of 2013).

11.2.– In the case at hand, Decree-Law No. 13 of 2023, entitled «Urgent provisions for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) and the National Complementary Investment Plan to the PNRR (PNC), as well as for the implementation of cohesion policies and the Common Agricultural Policy», already in the preamble acknowledges the «extraordinary necessity and urgency to define measures aimed at ensuring the timely implementation of interventions related to the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), consistently with the related schedule, as well as the National Complementary Investment Plan to the PNRR (PNC)». The purpose of implementing the interventions of extraordinary necessity and urgency related to the PNRR is therefore recalled both in the title and in the preamble of the decree-law in question.

Such legislative intervention therefore contains norms for the implementation of the PNRR, approved on July 13, 2021, by the Ecofin Council of the European Union, among whose objectives also figures that referred to in Component 2 of Mission 1 (Digitalization, innovation, and competitiveness in the productive system), which includes important investments—and among these, in particular, Investment 3—to ensure coverage of the entire territory with ultra-broadband networks (FTTH fiber, FWA, and 5G), a necessary condition to allow companies to obtain the benefits of digitalization and, more generally, to fully realize the goal of the "gigabit society”.

11.3.– Well, Art. 18, inserted in Title II (dedicated to «Provisions for the acceleration and streamlining of procedures») of Chapter I of Decree-Law No. 13 of 2023, is functional to the realization of the same objectives of the PNRR pursued by the same decree-law. Said Art. 18 dictates, in fact, «[m]easures regarding digital infrastructure and the purchase of IT goods and services instrumental to the realization of the PNRR, as well as the digitalization of procedures».

Insofar as it relates to the simplification and acceleration of procedures for the realization of the high-speed TLC network, the provision introduced by paragraph 7 of the mentioned Art. 18 of Decree-Law No. 13 of 2023, as converted, is therefore materially homogeneous with respect to the function overall pursued by the decree-law in which it is inserted. It, in fact, affects the regulation of the realization of TLC plants, as do other provisions of the same decree, thus highlighting intrinsic consistency with the norms contained therein, both from an objective and material point of view, and from a functional and finalistic point of view.

Therefore, the question raised with reference to Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution must be declared unfounded.

12.– With regard to the further challenges formulated by the referring judge, it is necessary to preliminarily note that Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, considered unitarily by the referring judge, comprises two distinct normative contents, which must be examined separately.

The challenged provision, in the first part, establishes that, for the realization of high-speed TLC infrastructure in areas burdened by civic uses, the authorization for the change of destination of use, referred to in Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of 1927, is not necessary.

The second part of the same provision provides that—in cases of installation of the infrastructure referred to in Arts. 44, 45, 46, 47, and 49 of the same Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 and for the realization of initiatives aimed at upgrading infrastructure and ensuring the functionality of networks and the operation and continuity of TLC services—the landscape constraint referred to in Art. 142, paragraph 1, letter h), of Legislative Decree No. 42 of 2004 does not apply.

13.– It is necessary at this point to examine the challenges formulated by the referring judge with regard to the first part of Art. 54-bis of the Electronic Communications Code, where it excludes the necessity of the authorization referred to in Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of 1927.

14.– The question raised with reference to Art. 3 of the Constitution, under the profile of the defect of reasonableness, is unfounded.

In support of such challenge, the lower judge deduces that the provision in question would disregard the actual impact that TLC networks can concretely have on the environment.

Such provision realizes, instead, a not-unreasonable balancing of the conflicting interests in light of the benefit—in terms of innovation, efficiency, and social cohesion—that the change of destination produces both for the communities of the affected territory and for the entire state community, without frustrating the conservation and the regime of unavailability of civic uses.

15.– The question of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 54-bis, first part, of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, deduced with reference to Art. 24 of the Constitution, is unfounded due to the inapplicability of the parameter invoked.

15.1.– The referring judge believes Art. 24 of the Constitution is violated, since the exemption from the authorization referred to in Art. 12 of Law No. 1766 of 1927 would end up depriving the communities, to whom the corresponding rights belong, of the possibility of opposing the realization of such infrastructure as well as obtaining the restitution of assets in the event of abandonment of the works.

15.2.– In this regard, constant jurisprudence of this Court has affirmed that the substantial content of the right exercised in legal proceedings does not belong to the guarantee referred to in Art. 24 of the Constitution—a guarantee of a procedural nature, insofar as it pertains to judicial protection (judgment No. 98 of 2019). The violation of such principle was recognized when procedural rules impose conditions of «substantial impediment to the exercise of the right to action» (judgments No. 158 of 2019, No. 117 of 2012, No. 30 of 2011, No. 237 of 2007 and No. 266 of 2006). Indeed, «what counts is that burdens are not imposed or modalities are not prescribed such as to render the exercise of the right of defense or the performance of procedural activity impossible or extremely difficult» (judgments No. 98 of 2019 and No. 199 of 2017; in the same sense, judgments No. 121 and No. 44 of 2016).

15.3.– In the case at hand, the challenged provision does not regulate the exercise of the right to action, limiting itself to exempting certain categories of works from regional authorization. It is, therefore, a provision that does not concern judicial protection, but the regulation of the authorization procedure related to the construction of TLC infrastructure.

The holders of civic uses affected by the construction of the network do not find in the challenged provision an obstacle to asserting in a hypothetical legal proceeding their own interest contrary to the construction of such plants. Indeed, they retain in any case the possibility of initiating legal action to protect their own rights, even in relation to the potential environmental or property impact of the works in question, possibly challenging the authorization for the installation of the infrastructure. In this regard, it is highlighted that Art. 44, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 imposes on local authorities the public disclosure of the application for authorization for the installation of the TLC plant, precisely in order to allow the affected communities to assert their interests in that forum, indicating any reasons precluding the realization of the intervention.

In short, the right to judicial protection, at the safeguard of which the constitutional norm invoked is placed, does not result in being violated by the challenged provision and the question raised with reference to Art. 24 of the Constitution must be declared unfounded (judgments No. 230 of 2021 and No. 98 of 2019).

16.– The question of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 54-bis, first part, of the Electronic Communications Code, raised with reference to Art. 9 of the Constitution, is unfounded.

16.1.– It is necessary to premise that the transformations of the territory affected by the presence of civic uses are still today largely regulated by Law No. 1766 of 1927. Born as a law for the reorganization and massive liquidation of civic uses, in subsequent application this law became an effective tool for their conservation. The related legal regime of imprescriptibility, inalienability, and immutability prevents the removal of such heritage from its natural vocation.

Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of 1927 introduces an exception to the general rule of the immutability of the destination of lands burdened by civic uses, providing for this purpose a specific authorization measure from the state authority, now the regions, to which first the Decree of the President of the Republic No. 11 of January 15, 1972 (Transfer to the Regions with ordinary statute of state administrative functions in matters of agriculture and forests, hunting and fishing in internal waters and related personnel and offices) and then the Decree of the President of the Republic No. 616 of July 24, 1977 (Implementation of the delegation referred to in Art. 1 of Law No. 382 of July 22, 1975) transferred the administrative functions.

Law No. 168 of 2017, in Art. 3, paragraph 3, then confirmed that «[t]he legal regime of assets referred to in paragraph 1 [collective assets] remains that of inalienability, indivisibility, non-usucapibility, and perpetual agro-silvo-pastoral destination».

Art. 41 of the Royal Decree No. 332 of February 16, 1928 (Approval of the regulation for the execution of Law No. 1766 of June 16, 1927, on the reorganization of civic uses in the Kingdom) allows municipalities and agrarian associations to request that a different destination be given to all or part of the lands, on condition that it represents «a real benefit for the generality of the inhabitants, such as the establishment of experimental fields, nurseries, and the like».

This prerequisite has been interpreted in a broad sense by ordinary legitimacy jurisprudence and by administrative jurisprudence. It has in fact been recognized that regions, in deciding on requests for change of destination of lands of civic use advanced by municipalities and agrarian associations and in evaluating whether the new different destination represents a benefit for the generality of the inhabitants, are free to take into consideration any type of interest deemed more congruent, be it of an agricultural, industrial, commercial, hygienic-sanitary, tourist, or environmental nature (Court of Cassation, Second Civil Section, judgment No. 1307 of January 30, 2001; Regional Administrative Tribunal for Molise, First Section, judgment No. 370 of December 6, 2024; TAR Tuscany, First Section, May 9, 2005, No. 2082).

16.2.– With specific reference to the change of destination of lands burdened by civic uses, this Court has already affirmed that it does not conflict with the regime of unavailability of the asset. While a measure such as alienation involves the transformation of public domain assets into private assets (and thus the subjection of the asset to the civil law regulation of private property), the change of destination is a tool for managing assets that remain collective and is compatible with the regime of unavailability (judgment No. 71 of 2020). Such change does not prevent the conservation of the public relief of the asset and has the purpose of maintaining, even in the change of use, a use useful to the community that remains the holder thereof (judgments No. 113 of 2018, No. 103 of 2017 and No. 391 of 1989), to which it must bring a «real benefit», pursuant to Art. 41 of Royal Decree No. 332 of 1928. The new destination can therefore entail the suspension of the exercise of the right of civic use, but does not determine the disappearance of the landscape constraint.

The provision in question therefore introduces a measure of procedural simplification aimed at facilitating the realization of certain interventions of transformation of lands burdened by civic uses, without compromising the conservation of such assets as belonging to the reference communities. Their public relief is preserved, albeit in a different functional arrangement, compatible with the regime of unavailability that characterizes them.

16.3.– In conclusion, with Art. 54-bis, first part, of the Electronic Communications Code, the state legislator has made, in a general way, an assessment of the compatibility of the realization of TLC infrastructure with the destination of lands burdened by civic uses, the protection of which cannot «consist of a static conservation, but rather in a management regime that preserves its ecological character and legal discipline in consistency with the evolution of the agricultural and environmental economy» (judgment No. 71 of 2020).

Therefore, the question of constitutional legitimacy must be declared unfounded, raised with reference to Art. 9 of the Constitution, of Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, in the part where—for the realization of high-speed TLC infrastructure in areas burdened by civic uses—it excludes the necessity of the authorization for the change of destination of use provided by Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of 1927.

17.– It is now possible to move on to examine the question of constitutional legitimacy, raised with reference to Art. 9 of the Constitution, of Art. 54-bis, second part, of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, where it is provided that—for the realization of high-speed TLC infrastructure in areas burdened by civic uses—the landscape constraint does not apply.

The question is well-founded.

17.1.– As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the strategic importance of civic uses in terms of environmental protection found its recognition, first, with Decree-Law No. 312 of June 27, 1985 (Urgent provisions for the protection of areas of particular environmental interest), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 431 of August 8, 1985, which, in Art. 1, paragraph 1, letter h), subjected to landscape constraint «the areas assigned to agrarian universities and the zones burdened by civic uses» and, later, with Art. 142 of the Code of Cultural Heritage which, in paragraph 1, letter h), qualified the zones burdened by civic uses as landscape assets ex lege. Law No. 168 of 2017, in Art. 1, paragraph 1, letter c), then recognized the primary legal system of collective domains as «endowed with the capacity for managing natural, economic, and cultural heritage».

17.2.– Constitutional jurisprudence has long recognized a functional and structural overlap between the protection of the landscape and that of the environment, which is reflected in «a specific unitary interest of the national community in the conservation of civic uses, insofar as and to the extent that they contribute to determining the form of the territory on which they are exercised, understood as the product of "an integration between man and natural environment”» (judgments No. 113 of 2018, No. 210 of 2014 and No. 46 of 1995; in the same sense, judgments No. 125 of 2025 and No. 133 of 1993).

The persistent vitality of the system of civic uses rests, therefore, on an evolution of their function, connected to the characterization of the nature of the collective asset, as it is also useful for the conservation of environmental values, and this not only for the benefit of individual members of the user community in the specific territorial context, but for the generality of associates and future generations.

17.3.– Regarding the case at hand, it should be emphasized that, before the introduction of the challenged provision, the installation of TLC plants in an area burdened by civic use was in any case subject to the authorization referred to in Arts. 43 and following of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, where a procedure suitable to replace every other authorization, concessionary, or assent act, however named, is provided.

However, such authorization could not be issued regardless of any assessment of compatibility with the landscape constraint insisting on the areas affected by the intervention. Indeed, Art. 43, paragraph 5, of the Electronic Communications Code, as replaced by Art. 1, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 207 of November 8, 2021, containing «Implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code», expressly preserved the provisions for the protection of environmental and cultural assets. This provision, dedicated to «Electronic communication infrastructure and rights of way», establishes, in fact, that «[t]he provisions for the protection of environmental and cultural assets contained in Legislative Decree No. 42 of January 22, 2004, remain in force».

In particular, the importance of guarantees in defense of the landscape also emerges from Art. 44, paragraph 10, where it is expressly provided that the unfavorable opinion of the administration in charge of environmental protection prevents the completion of the authorization procedure.

17.4.– Moreover, with reference to the regulation prior to the entry into force of the challenged provision, administrative jurisprudence had clarified that, in zones subject to constraint, the installation of base radio stations for mobile telephony requires a case-by-case assessment of environmental compatibility, according to what is provided by Art. 43 of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 (Council of State, Sixth Section, judgments No. 7601 of September 30, 2025, and No. 222 of January 9, 2023; TAR Lazio, Fifth Quater Section, judgment No. 16056 of September 5, 2025).

More generally, it has been recognized that the favor ensured for the diffusion of TLC networks, expressed by Legislative Decree 259 of 2003, does not allow derogating from the disciplines set for the protection of differentiated interests, such as the naturalistic-environmental one, as an expression of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, nor does it allow the compression of landscape interests guarded by suitable constraints (Council of State No. 7601 of 2025 and, again, Sixth Section, judgment No. 4462 of June 10, 2021).

Precisely with regard to the simplified procedure for authorizations of new TLC plants referred to in Art. 87 (now Art. 44) of Legislative Decree 259 of 2003, the Council of State excluded its operability where the property falls within a zone subject to landscape constraint (Council of State, Sixth Section, judgments No. 7362 of November 3, 2021, No. 4749 of October 14, 2015, No. 4226 of August 8, 2014, and, Fifth Section, judgment No. 2395 of May 2, 2013).

17.5.– Well, in the case at hand, with the exclusion of the applicability of the landscape constraint—to which, pursuant to Art. 1, paragraph 1, letter h), of Decree-Law No. 312 of 1985, as converted, the zones burdened by civic uses are subjected—Art. 54-bis, second part, has established, in a general and abstract way, the prevalence of the interest in the diffusion of TLC infrastructure with respect to that of environmental protection, which expresses itself through the imposition of the same constraint.

Therefore, until the entry into force in 2023 of Art. 54-bis of the Electronic Communications Code, the simplification provisions aimed at favoring the development of the TLC network were based on the assumption that the protection of the interest in the conservation of the environment and landscape was ensured by the provision for the necessary compliance with the landscape constraint (Art. 43, paragraph 5, Electronic Communications Code). The challenged provision instead marks a radical "change of pace” in the liberalization discipline of TLC networks introduced by Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, since it eliminates the system of guarantees connected to the imposition of the landscape constraint, to which areas burdened by civic use are subjected, pursuant to Art. 1, first paragraph, letter h), of Decree-Law No. 312 of 1985, as converted, and of Art. 142, paragraph 1, letter h), of Legislative Decree No. 42 of 2004.

The needs for administrative simplification, connected to the priority character of the realization of the TLC network, can justify, for what has been said, the failure to provide for the authorization for the change of destination of use of assets burdened by civic uses. However, they cannot eliminate altogether the protection of the landscape through the definitive and generalized exclusion of the constraint functional to its protection. Cultural and landscape constraints require specific assessments, linked to the individual territorial context and entrusted to the authorities in charge of their observance.

In other words, simplifying cannot lead to the denial at the root of every guarantee of environmental protection. The search for an adequate balance and the composition of the potential conflict between the protection of the landscape and environment and other interests of a general nature must be realized in the procedural forum and according to the principle of proportionality.

The indiscriminate and automatic assessment of the prevalence of the interest in the diffusion of TLC networks with respect to environmental and landscape needs connected to the presence of civic uses is in contrast with Art. 9 of the Constitution.

17.6.– The constitutional illegitimacy of Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 must therefore be declared, in the part where it provides that—in cases of installation of the infrastructure referred to in Arts. 44, 45, 46, 47, and 49 of the same Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 and for the implementation of initiatives aimed at upgrading infrastructure and ensuring the functionality of networks and the operation and continuity of telecommunications services—«the landscape protection constraint referred to in Article 142, paragraph 1, letter h), of the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, of Legislative Decree No. 42 of January 22, 2004, shall not apply».

17.7.– The further questions of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 54-bis, second part, of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 remain absorbed.

18.– This Court cannot exempt itself from renewing the invitation for a legislative update of the regulation of civic uses, necessary so that legal certainty is guaranteed in the circulation of assets and «the duty of the legislator to intervene organically in the matter is fulfilled, putting order in a regulatory sector in which overlap and conflict […] the interest of local communities, the fundamental national interest in the protection of the environment-asset, the private and public interest in the protection of property, the private and public interest in the exercise of economic activity and the realization of public works and infrastructure that no political community can do without» (judgment No. 125 of 2025).

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1) declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of August 1, 2003 (Electronic Communications Code), in the part where it provides that—in cases of installation of the infrastructure referred to in Arts. 44, 45, 46, 47, and 49 of the same Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 and for the implementation of initiatives aimed at upgrading infrastructure and ensuring the functionality of networks and the operation and continuity of telecommunications services—«the landscape protection constraint referred to in Article 142, paragraph 1, letter h), of the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, of Legislative Decree No. 42 of January 22, 2004, shall not apply»;

2) declares inadmissible the question of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, in the part where, for the realization of high-speed electronic communication infrastructure in areas burdened by civic uses, it excludes the necessity of the authorization referred to in Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of June 16, 1927 (Conversion into law of Royal Decree No. 751 of May 22, 1924, regarding the reorganization of civic uses in the Kingdom, of Royal Decree No. 1484 of August 28, 1924, amending Art. 26 of Royal Decree No. 751 of May 22, 1924, and of Royal Decree No. 895 of May 16, 1926, extending the terms assigned by Art. 2 of Royal Decree-Law No. 751 of May 22, 1924), raised, with reference to Art. 3 of the Constitution, under the profile of the principle of equality, by the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Umbria, and Tuscany, with the order indicated in the epigraph;

3) declares unfounded the question of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003 raised, with reference to Art. 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, by the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Umbria, and Tuscany, with the order indicated in the epigraph;

4) declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Art. 54-bis of Legislative Decree No. 259 of 2003, in the part where, for the realization of high-speed electronic communication infrastructure in areas burdened by civic uses, it excludes the necessity of the authorization referred to in Art. 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of 1927, raised, with reference to Arts. 3, under the profile of the principle of reasonableness, 9 and 24 of the Constitution, by the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Umbria, and Tuscany, with the order indicated in the epigraph.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on May 6, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Marco D’ALBERTI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Chancellery

Filed in the Chancellery on July 6, 2026

 

The anonymized version is consistent, in text, with the original