Sentenza n. 139 del 2026

Judgment no. 139 of 2026 - AI translated

JUDGMENT NO. 139

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, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in proceedings concerning the constitutionality of Article 13-bis, paragraph 1, letter a), of Decree-Law No. 17 of March 1, 2022 (Urgent measures for the containment of electricity and natural gas costs, for the development of renewable energies, and for the relaunch of industrial policies), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 34 of April 27, 2022, brought by the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Umbria, and Tuscany, in the proceedings pending between Università agraria di Civitavecchia and Terna - Rete Elettrica Nazionale S.p.A. and others, by an order dated September 15, 2025, registered under No. 235 of the 2025 register of orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, 1st Special Series, No. 50, of the year 2025.

Having regard to the appearance in proceedings of Terna - Rete Elettrica Nazionale S.p.A. and Terna Rete Italia S.p.A., as well as the intervention of the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard Judge Rapporteur Marco D’Alberti at the public hearing of June 23, 2026;

having heard attorneys Marcello Cecchetti and Mario Percuoco for Terna - Rete Elettrica Nazionale S.p.A. and Terna Rete Italia S.p.A., as well as State Attorneys Paolo Passolunghi and Maria Luisa Spina for the President of the Council of Ministers;

having deliberated in chambers on June 24, 2026.

The Facts in Brief

1.– By an order dated September 15, 2025, registered under No. 235 of the 2025 register of orders, the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Umbria, and Tuscany raised, with reference to Articles 3, 9, 24, and 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 13-bis, paragraph 1, letter a), of Decree-Law No. 17 of March 1, 2022 (Urgent measures for the containment of electricity and natural gas costs, for the development of renewable energies, and for the relaunch of industrial policies), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 34 of April 27, 2022.

The challenged provision, introduced during the conversion into law of Decree-Law No. 17 of 2022, inserted paragraphs 1-ter and 1-quater into Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of June 8, 2001, laying down the «Consolidated text of legislative and regulatory provisions concerning expropriation for public utility (Text A)», which govern the compatibility with the exercise of civic uses of power lines forming part of the National Electricity Transmission Grid (RTN).

Paragraph 1-ter establishes that «[w]ithout prejudice to compliance with landscape protection regulations, power lines referred to in Article 52-quinquies, paragraph 1, shall generally be deemed compatible with the exercise of civic use, without prejudice to the possibility for the region, or a municipality delegated by it, to express a different assessment on a case-by-case basis, with adequate reasoning, within the authorization procedure for the adoption of the measure declaring the public utility of the infrastructure».

Paragraph 1-quater provides that «[w]ithout prejudice to compliance with landscape protection regulations, the reconstruction of pre-existing overhead or underground power lines referred to in Article 52-quinquies, paragraph 1, rendered necessary by reasons of obsolescence, shall always be deemed compatible with the exercise of civic use, provided they are constructed using the best available technologies and are carried out along the same route as the pre-existing line or in its immediate vicinity».

2.– The referring Commissioner stated that he must rule upon the appeal in which the Università agraria di Civitavecchia contested the unlawful occupation, by Terna - Rete Elettrica Nazionale S.p.A. and Terna Rete Italia S.p.A., of collectively owned land. The appellant requested a judicial determination regarding the *qualitas soli* of the properties upon which a section of the «Civitavecchia - Palidoro» power line is located. In their appearance in the proceedings, the respondent companies requested the dismissal of the appeal, arguing that the challenged provision had eliminated the need for the authorization provided for under Article 12 of Law No. 1766 of June 16, 1927 (Conversion into law of Royal Decree No. 751 of May 22, 1924, concerning the reorganization of civic uses in the Kingdom, Royal Decree No. 1484 of August 28, 1924, amending Article 26 of Royal Decree No. 751 of May 22, 1924, and Royal Decree No. 895 of May 16, 1926, extending the deadlines set by Article 2 of Royal Decree-Law No. 751 of May 22, 1924).

2.1.– The question is alleged to be relevant to the resolution of the proceedings.

The unequivocal literal meaning of the challenged provision would compel the court to «take note of the assessment of abstract compatibility of the works» with civic uses and of the non-necessity of the authorization for the change of intended use provided for by Article 12, second paragraph, of Law No. 1766 of 1927. Only in the event of the constitutional legitimacy question being upheld could the construction of the power line on collective property be deemed unlawful.

2.2.– The first order of challenges alleges the violation of Article 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution.

The challenged provision, introduced during the conversion into law, is claimed to be extraneous and heterogeneous with respect to the subject matter of Decree-Law No. 17 of 2022, which is aimed at tackling the increase in energy costs for households and businesses. Furthermore, the requirements of necessity and urgency would be lacking, «as it concerns the planning of works where it is uncertain whether and when they will be carried out in the future».

2.3.– The challenged provision is also alleged to violate Article 9 of the Constitution, conflicting with the environmental protection function recognized for civic uses by Article 1, paragraph 1, of 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; by Article 142, paragraph 1, letter f) [recte: letter h], of 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); and by Article 3, paragraph 6, of Law No. 168 of November 20, 2017 (Rules on collective domains).

The referring judge emphasizes that the environmental protection function inherent in civic uses has been recognized both by constitutional case law (reference is made to judgments No. 367 of 2007, No. 46 of 1995, and No. 133 of 1993, and order No. 316 of 1998) and by legitimacy case law (reference is made to Court of Cassation, United Civil Sections, judgment No. 3811 of February 16, 2011).

2.4.– The challenged provision is furthermore alleged to violate the right of defense enshrined in Article 24 of the Constitution.

The abstract compatibility of power lines with the exercise of civic uses and the elimination of the requirement for authorization to change intended use would infringe upon powers reserved to the regions pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 616 of July 24, 1977 (Implementation of the delegation referred to in Article 1 of Law No. 382 of July 22, 1975).

The challenged provision would result in the indefinite «privatization» of collective assets, and the communities holding the related rights would be deprived of the possibility of opposing the construction of such infrastructure, as well as of obtaining the restitution of the assets in the event of abandonment of the works, thereby substantially impeding the exercise of the right of action guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution, given that neither subsequent protection nor compensatory remedies of a restorative nature are provided.

2.5.– In the referring judge's opinion, the challenged provision also violates Article 3 of the Constitution under the profile of the principle of equality, since only companies intending to install power lines would be exempted from the obligation to request authorization for the change of intended use, thus escaping public procurement and transparency rules, unlike what occurs for the construction of other works of even greater significance, such as hospitals, highways, and schools, which are instead subject to such procedures.

2.6.– The violation of Article 3 of the Constitution is also alleged under the profile of the principle of reasonableness, for the reasons illustrated in the judgments of this Court No. 310 of 2006 and No. 345 of 1997, by which the constitutional illegitimacy was declared of regional regulations that – in relation to certain categories of public works – provided for analogous assessments of abstract compatibility with civic uses.

In those judgments, unreasonableness was identified in the assimilation, operated by the regional legislature, between the collective enjoyment of land subject to a civic use and the interest in carrying out a public work upon it. Certain categories of infrastructure would thus be exempted from state regulations aimed at guaranteeing the community's interest in the preservation of civic uses and the safeguarding of the environment and the landscape.

Similarly, in the present case, the possibility of constructing power lines without the need to obtain authorization for the change of intended use of the lands concerned would imply an abstract assessment of the compatibility of the works, i.e., without considering the actual impact they may 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 by a brief filed on December 30, 2025, requesting that the questions of constitutional legitimacy be declared inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded.

3.1.– As a preliminary matter, the State defense objects to the inadmissibility of the questions due to a lack of reasoning concerning relevance, since the *judge a quo* failed to illustrate the reasons why the challenged provision would affect the civic use existing on the collective properties.

Indeed, the construction of the infrastructure would by no means deprive the community of its civic use; conversely, the challenged provision presupposes its maintenance, limiting itself to establishing a presumption of compatibility between power lines and the exercise of collective rights.

Furthermore, the referral order lacks any description of the administrative background from which the dispute originates. The referring judge merely stated that a 132 kV power line is located on the property, without providing any indication of its characteristics.

3.2.– Also as a preliminary matter, the President of the Council of Ministers objected to the inadmissibility of the questions raised by the referring Commissioner due to *aberratio ictus* or, in any event, absolute uncertainty regarding the provision subject to challenge.

In the reasoning of the referral order, in fact, the *judge a quo* refers to works concerning the «reconstruction of an obsolete power line dating back to 1938, to be carried out with the necessary technological innovations along the same route». However, this activity is not governed by paragraph 1-ter, but by the distinct provision set forth in paragraph 1-quater of the same Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001, as amended by Decree-Law No. 17 of 2022, as converted.

The State defense also emphasized that the referring judge's complaints focus on the exclusion of the requirement for authorization to change intended use; however, such regulation is contained in paragraph 1-bis of the same Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001, which was not amended by the challenged provision.

This would result in the objective uncertainty of the subject matter of the questions, thereby precluding an examination of their merits.

3.3.– The State defense also objected to the inadmissibility of the question raised with reference to Article 3 of the Constitution, as regards the principle of equality, due to deficient reasoning concerning the alleged inequality of treatment and, in particular, the generic indication of the situations compared, which prevents an adequate assessment of the challenge.

3.4.– On the merits, the State defense considers the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the *judge a quo* to be unfounded.

3.4.1.– As to the alleged violation of Article 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, the State Attorney General's Office considers that the measures simplifying the procedures for the installation and maintenance of power lines introduced by the challenged Article 13-bis, paragraph 1, letter a), are intrinsically consistent with the other provisions of the same Decree-Law No. 17 of 2022, which is globally aimed at pursuing structural objectives of simplification in energy matters.

3.4.2.– Nor would there be any alleged conflict with Article 9 of the Constitution, since the challenged provision does not sacrifice environmental protection requirements, but limits itself to establishing a presumption of compatibility of certain public works with the exercise of civic use, provided that certain conditions are met, aimed at adequately guaranteeing environmental and landscape protection.

3.4.3.– As to the violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, the President of the Council of Ministers argues that the complained-of elimination of the authorization for the change of intended use does not derive from the challenged provision, but from the general rule under paragraph 1-bis of the same Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001.

In any event, Article 24 of the Constitution would not be violated, because access to justice and the right of defense of the communities holding the collective properties are not precluded at all; such communities could still take legal action to protect their rights, requesting the verification of the conditions established by the challenged provision for the purpose of the infrastructure's compatibility with civic use rights.

3.4.4.– As to the conflict with Article 3 of the Constitution for violation of the principle of equality, no inequality of treatment is discernible. The challenged provision merely provides for a presumption of compatibility of power lines with civic uses, without however modifying the obligations incumbent upon the constructor of the works.

As to the alleged unreasonableness of Article 4, paragraph 1-ter, of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001, introduced by the challenged provision, the State Attorney General's Office points out that this provision, on the one hand, mandates compliance with landscape protection regulations, and on the other hand, preserves a different assessment by the region or the delegated municipality. The presumption of compatibility is therefore reasonable, as it is aimed at simplifying and expediting the procedures for the construction and modernization of power lines, in order to reduce the costs of such works and those of energy on the final market.

4.– By a brief filed on December 30, 2025, the companies Terna - Rete Elettrica Nazionale S.p.A. and Terna Rete Italia S.p.A. entered an appearance in the present 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 parties objected to the inadmissibility of the constitutional legitimacy questions due to a lack of relevance.

The parties' defense highlighted that the referring judge's challenges have as their object Article 13-bis, paragraph 1, letter a), of Decree-Law No. 17 of 2022, as converted, which introduced into Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001 differentiated regulations referring respectively to the construction of new power lines (paragraph 1-ter) and the maintenance of pre-existing facilities (paragraph 1-quater). However, the *judge a quo* failed to specify which of the two different regulations is to be applied in the present case. This results in the indeterminacy of the subject matter of the challenges and their inadmissibility.

Moreover, even if the questions were referred solely to paragraph 1-ter of Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001, the requirement of relevance would be lacking, since the main proceedings concern the reconstruction of a power line existing since 1938, as highlighted in the referral order itself.

On the other hand, if referred to paragraph 1-quater of the same Article 4, the questions would likewise be inadmissible for failure to describe the factual scenario, as the *thema decidendum* of the proceedings is not clarified. The referring judge, in fact, failed to specify whether the object of the proceedings brought before him is the ascertainment of the existence of civic uses on the properties, or the lawfulness of the occupation of such properties by an obsolete power line, or both aspects. Furthermore, even in this case, it would not be necessary to apply the challenged provision in order to ascertain the existence of civic uses, since such circumstance constitutes a necessary prerequisite for the application of that regulation.

4.2.– On the merits, the parties argued that the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the Commissioner are unfounded.

4.2.1.– As to the alleged violation of Article 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, it is noted that the challenged provision is fully consistent with the objectives of simplification in energy matters pursued by Decree-Law No. 17 of 2022.

The presumption of compatibility of power lines with the exercise of civic uses is aimed at facilitating the assessment required by the preceding paragraph 1-bis of Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001, excluding the need for authorization to change the intended use of land burdened by civic uses. In this way, the more effective and prompt connection to the national electricity grid, including of plants using renewable sources, would be favored.

4.2.2.– As to the violation of Article 9 of the Constitution, the parties objected to the inadmissibility or, in any event, the unfoundedness of the question, in view of the erroneous interpretive premise of the referring judge.

Paragraph 1-ter of Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001, in fact, merely introduces a relative presumption of compatibility, which can be overcome through a different assessment by the region or the municipality delegated by it within the framework of the authorization procedure.

The challenge is likewise unfounded even when referred to paragraph 1-quater of the same Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001.

In this case, the presumption of compatibility with the exercise of civic use would concern exclusively the reconstruction of pre-existing infrastructure: it is therefore based on a prior factual situation in which the exercise of civic use has already coexisted with the infrastructure. Such prior coexistence justifies the compatibility of the reconstruction of the power line with the civic use, without this causing any unreasonable compression of the legal positions involved. Moreover, the operation of such a presumption is circumscribed within rigorous limits, being subordinated to the use of the best available technologies and to the reconstruction along the same route or in its immediate vicinity, so as to minimize the environmental impact of the intervention.

The challenged provision is therefore the expression of a non-arbitrary balancing of multiple constitutional values. In addition to the protection of the landscape and the environmental heritage, the legislature has, in fact, taken into account the requirements connected to the efficiency of the electricity transmission service, which is essential for the satisfaction of general interests.

The choice to favor the reconstruction of obsolete infrastructure responds in fact to the need to contain environmental impact, making it possible to avoid further land consumption and new compromises to environmental layouts.

The presence of the safeguard clause, contained in both paragraph 1-ter and paragraph 1-quater of Article 4, which makes the operation of this regulation conditional upon compliance with landscape regulations, was also emphasized. Therefore, no automatic derogation from landscape restrictions is introduced: wherever planning instruments or existing restrictions exclude the possibility of building or reconstructing a power line, the challenged regulation will not apply, and the landscape and environmental protection framework outlined by Article 9 of the Constitution will remain intact.

4.2.3.– The question of constitutional legitimacy raised with reference to Article 24 of the Constitution is inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded.

With regard to paragraph 1-ter of Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001, the referring judge proceeds from an erroneous interpretive premise, contradicted by the literal wording of the rule. It does not introduce any absolute compatibility between power lines and civic uses at all, but merely provides for a relative presumption, which can be overcome by means of a specific and adequately reasoned assessment within the authorization procedure for the declaration of public utility. Therefore, no change in the intended use of assets burdened by civic use is established, nor is the regional preliminary investigation and the participation of the interested communities excluded.

The question is in any event unfounded, since the reference to Article 24 of the Constitution is irrelevant. The challenge concerns, in fact, the substantive content of the regulation and not the instruments of judicial protection or the modalities of exercising the right of defense.

As regards paragraph 1-quater of the same Article 4, the parties argued that this provision neither eliminated nor suspended the collective rights of civic use, which continue to exist and remain exercisable. The reconstruction of electrical infrastructure does not entail any change in intended use, being based on the compatibility – already tested over time – between power lines and the exercise of civic uses. In this case too, moreover, the parameter of Article 24 of the Constitution is irrelevant, since the challenges pertain to the substantive regulation of the institution rather than to the right of defense of the interested communities.

4.2.4.– The questions raised with reference to the violation of the principle of equality are also inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded.

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that it falls within the legislature's discretion to identify orders of priority in the execution of public works, providing for differentiated procedural regimes and facilities for certain types of interventions. Such choices pertain to the realm of political assessment, which is exempt from constitutional review.

On the merits, the preferential regime reserved for power lines is in any event reasonable, in view of their limited impact on the land compared to other public works.

On the other hand, the situations indicated as a *tertium comparationis* are irrelevant, as they compare objectively heterogeneous situations. Indeed, the presence of pylons or the overhead crossing of an area by conductors does not compromise the exercise of activities forming the subject matter of civic uses (grazing, gathering wood, grass, or mushrooms), which would instead be incompatible with infrastructure of greater impact, such as hospitals, schools, or highways, characterized by significant land consumption and irreversible transformations of the territory.

Conversely, the argument that power lines also require potentially invasive accessory works is not decisive. On the one hand, such a requirement is common to all public works; on the other hand, this very argument confirms the specific nature of power lines, whose overall impact remains contained in any case, thereby justifying the different regulation.

Finally, the prior compatibility between power lines and civic uses, which constitutes a prerequisite of paragraph 1-quater of Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001, denotes a differential trait of such infrastructure compared to others with which such coexistence is not possible. This reinforces the reasonableness of the regulation under examination, excluding the violation of Article 3 of the Constitution.

4.2.5.– Likewise inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded are the challenges concerning the violation of Article 3 of the Constitution, due to a lack of reasonableness.

The question concerning paragraph 1-ter of Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001 is inadmissible due to the erroneousness of the interpretive premise. No automatic and generalized compatibility between power lines and civic uses is enacted, since the region, or the municipality delegated by it, is still permitted to intervene in the authorization procedure by expressing its reasoned dissent.

On the merits, the reasonableness of the legislative choice is proven by a series of concurrent elements. In particular: a) the presumption of compatibility operates exclusively with reference to land upon which the coexistence between power lines and civic uses has already historically taken place; b) compatibility is limited to cases of reconstruction of power lines belonging to the national electricity transmission grid, identified in the development plan pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 79 of March 16, 1999 (Implementation of Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity) and Article 1-ter, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 239 of August 29, 2003 (Urgent provisions for the security and development of the national electricity system and for the recovery of electrical power), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 290 of October 27, 2003, as they are essential infrastructure for national energy supply; c) the regulation applies only when reconstruction is necessary due to the obsolescence of the facilities; d) the intervention must be carried out using the best available technologies and along the same route as the existing line or in its immediate vicinity, so as to minimize land consumption and environmental impact.

Finally, the safeguard clause – which makes the operation of the presumption of compatibility conditional upon compliance with landscape regulations – excludes any negative impact on the protection of the environment and the landscape.

These elements therefore attest to the non-unreasonableness of the challenged regulation, excluding the violation of Article 3 of the Constitution.

5.– Pursuant to Article 6 of the Supplementary Rules for Proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the National Federation of Collective Domains - Paolo Grossi and Pietro Nervi, acting as *amicus curiae*, filed a written opinion, admitted by Presidential Decree of April 24, 2026, in which it put forward considerations in support of the merits of the challenges raised by the referring judge.

The Federation argued that the challenged provision, by introducing a hypothesis of abstract compatibility with civic uses, excludes the need for authorization to change intended use, thereby permitting the compulsory and indefinite construction of power lines on collective lands.

The installation of power lines would entail a transformation of civic land and its agricultural and silvo-pastoral purpose to a different objective. Collective property would be removed from its natural vocation and its special legal protection regime, overlooking the environmental value of collective assets, in conflict with Article 9 of the Constitution.

The *amicus curiae* emphasized how civic uses contribute to environmental protection: their exercise and the substantial inalienability of the asset allow the preservation of the land in its agricultural and silvo-pastoral destination, which should endure intact also for users of future generations.

The challenged provision would also violate Article 24 of the Constitution because the community would not be permitted to exercise the right of defense guaranteed precisely by Article 12 of Law No. 1766 of 1927.

There would furthermore be a violation of Article 3 of the Constitution, both under the profile of equality and under that of reasonableness, since the construction of power lines would be regulated in an unjustifiably divergent manner compared to the generality of other works on lands burdened by civic uses.

As to the violation of Article 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, the *amicus curiae* argues the absence of the requirements of necessity and urgency for the adoption of Decree-Law No. 17 of 2022.

Findings in Law

6.– By the order indicated in the heading (ord. reg. No. 235 of 2025), the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Umbria, and Tuscany raised, with reference to Articles 3, 9, 24, and 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 13-bis, paragraph 1, letter a), of Decree-Law No. 17 of 2022, as converted.

The challenged provision, introduced during the conversion of that decree-law, inserted paragraphs 1-ter and 1-quater into Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 327 of 2001, which govern the compatibility of RTN power lines with the exercise of civic uses.

7.– First, the objection of inadmissibility – formulated by both the State defense and the parties – for omission of the description of the concrete factual scenario and consequent lack of reasoning on relevance is well-founded.

7.1.– The referral order lacks, in fact, not only a description of the contested fact – the *judge a quo* having merely reported that a section of «a 132 kV power line» is located on the property, without providing any indication of the characteristics of the plant and the property – but also any indication concerning the necessity of applying the challenged provision.

Indeed, the referring judge fails to address an essential diachronic profile, namely the circumstance that the facts contested in the proceedings submitted to his examination occurred prior to the entry into force of the challenged provision. It appears, in fact, from the referral order itself that the facts contested in the introductory appeal and disputed in the *main proceedings* (the unlawful occupation of land burdened by civic uses) occurred before December 24, 2021, the date of filing of the appeal, and thus before April 29, 2022, the date of entry into force of the challenged provision.

The referring judge in no way explains why – in the absence of transitional rules – the provision introduced by Law No. 34 of 2022 must be applied to a factual scenario that occurred during 2021.

7.2.– The lack of reasoning in the order is even more serious in light of recent legitimacy case law. Indeed, specifically with reference to this regulatory intervention, the Court of Cassation, after noting that these are «rules aimed at favoring energy development, which introduce a prior assessment of abstract compatibility of the installation of power lines with the civic use existing on the territory, and always barring a different assessment by the competent Authority with reference to the individual case», held that these very provisions «appear destined to operate for future situations, in the absence of a different regulatory indication, without removing the interest to act either with respect to the question concerning the lawfulness of the local installation of a power line that occurred prior to the entry into force of Law No. 34 of 2022, or, even less, in relation to the question concerning the unlawfulness of the occupation and the carrying out of activities factually conflicting with the community's enjoyment of the territory for the period prior to the entry into force of Law No. 34 of 2022» (Court of Cassation, United Civil Sections, order No. 31024 of November 7, 2023).

7.3.– The relevance of the doubt of constitutional legitimacy presupposes the necessity that the challenged provisions are effectively – and not merely eventually or subsequently – applicable in the *main proceedings* (among many, judgments No. 205 of 2025, No. 140, and No. 20 of 2018; orders No. 210 of 2020 and No. 184 of 2017). Conversely, the failure to consider the timing of the contested facts, which is decisive for the applicability of the challenged provision, constitutes a flaw in the reasoning regarding the relevance of all the questions raised, which must therefore be declared inadmissible (judgments No. 103 of 2021, No. 114, and No. 185 of 2015; orders No. 16 of 2014 and No. 295 of 2013).

on those grounds

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares inadmissible the questions of legitimacy of Article 13-bis, paragraph 1, letter a), of Decree-Law No. 17 of March 1, 2022 (Urgent measures for the containment of electricity and natural gas costs, for the development of renewable energies, and for the relaunch of industrial policies), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 34 of April 27, 2022, raised, with reference to Articles 3, 9, 24, and 77, second paragraph, of the Constitution, by the Commissioner for the Settlement of Civic Uses for the Regions of Lazio, Tuscany, and Umbria, by the order indicated in the heading.

So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on June 24, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Marco D’ALBERTI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed in the Registry on July 21, 2026