Sentenza n. 142 del 2026

Judgment no. 142 of 2026 - AI translated

JUDGMENT NO. 142

YEAR 2026

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in proceedings concerning the constitutionality of Articles 9(1), 13(2), 17(2) and (3), and 25 to 29 of Tuscany Region Law No. 49 of August 20, 2025 (Multifunctional management of forests and forest ecosystems, sustainable development, environmental protection and enhancement, powers regarding hydrogeological restrictions in regional parks and nature reserves. Amendments to regional laws 39/2000, 30/2015, and 65/1997), brought by the President of the Council of Ministers with an appeal served on October 24, 2025, filed at the registry on the subsequent October 29, entered in the appeal registry under no. 41 of 2025, and published in the Official Journal of the Republic, 1st Special Series, No. 48, of the year 2025.

Having regard to the appearance in court of the Tuscany Region;

having heard in the public hearing of May 19, 2026, the Judge Rapporteur Marco D’Alberti;

having heard State Counsel Maria Luisa Spina for the President of the Council of Ministers, and Counsel Marcello Cecchetti for the Tuscany Region;

having deliberated in the chambers on May 19, 2026.

The Proceedings in Fact

1.– By an appeal served on October 24, 2025, filed on the subsequent October 29, and registered under no. 41 of the appeal registry for 2025, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, brought proceedings concerning the constitutionality of Articles 9(1), 13(2), 17(2) and (3), 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of Tuscany Region Law No. 49 of August 20, 2025 (Multifunctional management of forests and forest ecosystems, sustainable development, environmental protection and enhancement, powers regarding hydrogeological restrictions in regional parks and nature reserves. Amendments to regional laws 39/2000, 30/2015, and 65/1997).

1.1.– Article 9(1) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 replaced paragraph 6 of Article 47 of Tuscany Region Law No. 39 of March 21, 2000 (Tuscany Forestry Law), providing that timber harvesting operations «that may be carried out without authorization or declaration shall not exceed an area of 3,000 square meters per property and per year, shall be exclusively intended for self-consumption with a prohibition on commercialization, and must be carried out in compliance with the technical rules set forth in the forestry regulations».

The previous text of the aforementioned paragraph 6 read as follows: «[t]imber harvesting operations [carried out] without authorization or declaration shall not exceed an area of 1,000 square meters per property and per year and must be carried out in compliance with the technical rules set forth in the forestry regulations».

The challenged regional provision allegedly violates Articles 9 and 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of protection of the environment, the ecosystem, and cultural heritage. Specifically, by tripling from 1,000 to 3,000 square meters the annual area of timber harvesting exempted from any authorization or declaration requirement—subject only to the condition that such harvesting is intended exclusively for self-consumption—it would reduce the minimum protection standards established by state legislation, making effective monitoring by the competent authorities impossible, including with regard to authorization procedures connected to environmental or landscape assessments.

A conflict would also arise with Article 7(3) of Legislative Decree No. 34 of April 3, 2018 (Consolidated Act on Forests and Forest Supply Chains), which requires regions, when regulating silvicultural practices, to always guarantee environmental protection and the sustainability of forest management.

Furthermore, the challenged Article 9(1) fails to contemplate any «exclusion» for the protected natural areas referred to in Law No. 394 of December 6, 1991 (Framework Law on Protected Areas) and for Natura 2000 network sites identified pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 357 of September 8, 1997 (Regulations implementing Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural and semi-natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna). The absence of such a «safeguard clause» would risk compromising the protection instruments introduced by the state legislature to ensure the conservation of natural habitats and species of Community interest.

1.2.– Articles 13(2)(h) (recte: Article 13(2)) and 17(2) and (3) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 allegedly violate Article 117(2)(h) and (s) of the Constitution, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competences in the matters of security and the protection of the environment, the ecosystem, and cultural heritage, thereby conflicting with Article 3(3) of Law No. 353 of November 21, 2000 (Framework Law on Forest Fires).

Article 13(2) replaced paragraph 2 of Article 70 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, which governs the Region’s powers within the framework of regional forest fire fighting activities (AIB). The new letter h) of the aforementioned paragraph 2 of Article 70, as replaced by the challenged provision, establishes that the Region shall carry out «the training, professional updating, and specialization of personnel operating, at any level, within the AIB».

The appellant complains that this provision fails to refer to the activities contemplated in the «AIB conventions» with the National Fire Corps (Corpo nazionale dei vigili ffuoco), an entity that autonomously provides for the training of its own operators belonging to forest fire extinguishing teams.

Article 17(2) replaced paragraph 2 of Article 74 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, which regulates AIB planning.

The appellant complains that the amendment fails to include, among the elements that must be defined in the AIB operational plan, those indicated in Article 3(3)(c-bis), (f), and (l) of Law No. 353 of 2000.

Finally, Article 17(3) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 provided that «[i]n letter b) of paragraph 3 of Article 74 of Regional Law 39/2000, the words: "letter b), number 4)” are replaced by the following: "letter d), number 5)”».

According to the appellant, in enacting this amendment, the regional legislature omitted to include the mandatory requirement for the annual updating of the AIB operational plan, as established by the aforementioned Article 3(3) of Law No. 353 of 2000.

The aforementioned provisions of Framework Law No. 353 of 2000 lay down minimum standards of environmental protection that cannot be derogated from by the regions, and they are likewise aimed at safeguarding public safety.

1.3.– Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 amended Tuscany Region Law No. 30 of March 19, 2015 (Rules for the conservation and enhancement of the regional naturalistic-environmental heritage. Amendments to regional law 24/1994, regional law 65/1997, regional law 24/2000, and regional law 10/2010).

In particular:

– Article 25 (entitled «Functions of the Region in the matter of protected natural areas. Amendments to Article 14 of Regional Law 30/2015») provided that «[i]n paragraph 3 of Article 14 of regional law no. 30 of March 19, 2015 (Rules for the conservation and enhancement of the regional naturalistic-environmental heritage), the words: "and of authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions”, are deleted»;

– Article 26 (entitled «Establishment and functions of the park authority for the management of the regional park. Amendments to Article 15 of Regional Law 30/2015») provided that «[i]n letter d) of paragraph 2 of Article 15 of Regional Law 30/2015, the words: "and authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions” are deleted»;

– Article 27 (entitled «Clearances and authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions in areas included within regional parks. Amendments to Article 31 of Regional Law 30/2015») replaced paragraph 3 of Article 31 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 30 of 2025 with the following: «Authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions referred to in Title V, Chapter I, of Regional Law 39/2000 are issued by the entities referred to in Article 3-ter of Regional Law 39/2000 upon obtaining the clearance (nulla-osta) of the park.»;

– Article 28 (entitled «Clearances and authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions in areas included within regional nature reserves. Amendments to Article 52 of Regional Law 30/2015»), replaced paragraph 3 of Article 52 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 30 of 2015 with the following: «Authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions referred to in Title V, Chapter I, of Regional Law 39/2000 are issued by the entities referred to in Article 3-ter of Regional Law 39/2000 upon obtaining the clearance referred to in paragraph 1.».

1.4.– Article 29 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 (entitled «Park Clearance. Amendments to Article 20 of Regional Law 65/1997») amended Tuscany Region Law No. 65 of August 11, 1997 (Establishment of the Management Authority for the "Apuan Alps Regional Park”. Suppression of the related Consortium), by replacing paragraph 2 of Article 20 of said regional law with the following: «Authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions referred to in Title V, Chapter I, of regional law No. 39 of March 21, 2000 (Tuscany Forestry Law) are issued by the competent entities referred to in Article 3-ter of Regional Law 39/2000 also for quarrying activities in contiguous areas».

1.5.– The challenged Articles 25 to 29 are closely connected, jointly affecting the regulation of authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions in regional parks and nature reserves. In this regard, the appellant observes that the previous regional legislation attributed the indicated authorization functions to the Region and to regional park authorities, on the basis of their respective competences in the management of nature reserves and parks, whereas the current legislation has reallocated these same functions to the entities referred to in Article 3-ter of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000—namely, the unions of municipalities that have succeeded mountain communities, the Metropolitan City of Florence, and other unions of municipalities identified by regional legislation on local autonomies.

This allegedly results in a violation of Articles 9 and 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of protection of the environment, the ecosystem, and cultural heritage, insofar as the challenged regional provisions conflict with the interposed rule set forth in Article 61(5) of Legislative Decree No. 152 of April 3, 2006 (Environmental Code), according to which «[t]he functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions referred to in Royal Decree-Law No. 3267 of December 30, 1923, shall be entirely exercised by the regions».

According to the appellant, in fact, constitutional jurisprudence has established that administrative functions attributable to matters of state exclusive legislative competence, once conferred by the State upon the regions, may not be further reallocated by the latter to sub-regional entities, as this would alter the allocation of competences defined at the national legislative level (reference is made to judgments no. 189 of 2021, no. 159 of 2012, and no. 187 of 2011). It is immaterial that the previous regional legislation also attributed the authorization functions in question to regional park authorities, since such attribution had to be considered compatible with the state regulatory framework, as they were in any case entities classifiable as regional (reference is made to judgment no. 67 of 1997).

2.– The Tuscany Region entered an appearance in the proceedings by a filing dated December 3, 2005 [recte: 2025], concluding for the inadmissibility of the questions concerning Article 13(2) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 and, in any event, for the lack of foundation of all the questions brought by the appellant.

2.1.– Regarding the challenge to Article 9(1), the Region observes that a systematic reading of this provision—which must not be considered in isolation, but rather in light of the regulatory context in which it is placed—reveals its constitutionality.

Article 47(6), (6-bis), and (6-ter) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, in the text prior to the amendments introduced by Article 9(1), (2), (3), and (4) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025, provided that:

– timber harvesting operations could be carried out without authorization or declaration up to a limit of 1,000 square meters per property and per year, in compliance with the technical rules set forth in the forestry regulations (former paragraph 6);

– timber harvesting operations covering an area greater than 1,000 square meters and less than 1 hectare were subject to authorization or declaration, with an obligation to notify the competent authority of the enterprise commissioned to carry out the work, but such notification was not required for harvesting carried out independently by the owner exclusively for self-consumption, with a prohibition on commercializing the material (former paragraph 6-bis);

– timber harvesting operations covering an area greater than 1 hectare, in addition to being subject to authorization or declaration, could be carried out exclusively by forestry enterprises registered in a specific list provided for under Article 38-bis of the same Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000 (enterprises that the Region defines as «equipped with an identification badge»), if carried out on agricultural-forestry assets or, if carried out on other properties, if funded even in part with public grants (former paragraph 6-ter).

The regional legislative amendment not only raised the surface area limit within which annual harvesting operations intended for self-consumption can be carried out without authorization or declaration, bringing it from 1,000 to 3,000 square meters (as complained by the appellant in challenging Article 9(1)), but also eliminated (following the amendments made by subsequent paragraphs of the same Article 9) the 1-hectare limit relating to self-consumption. Consequently, unlike in the past, harvesting operations over areas exceeding 3,000 square meters may now be carried out, subject to authorization or declaration, only by forestry enterprises registered in the aforementioned list, possessing specific qualifications.

In this manner, the Region exercised its residual legislative competences in the matters of agriculture and forests in order to adapt sector regulations to changing management needs for silvicultural practices, substantially raising the level of protection of forest ecosystems, which is also guaranteed by the provisions of the regional forestry regulations governing categories of intervention intended for self-consumption.

Therefore, there is no risk of a lowering of environmental protection as feared by the appellant, and consequently any conflict with Article 7(3) of Legislative Decree No. 34 of 2018 must be ruled out. That provision, in entrusting regions with identifying the silvicultural practices most suitable for environmental protection needs, does not indicate numerical limits below which environmental protection must be presumed deficient, but leaves the choice to the discretion of the regional legislature.

The lack of foundation must also be affirmed regarding the censure concerning the alleged omission of a safeguard clause for protected natural areas and Natura 2000 network sites.

For protected natural areas, such a clause is provided for by Article 68(4-bis) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, according to which «[t]he regulations of the park authority or nature reserves, as well as any management plans, shall also regulate the activities provided for by the forestry regulations referred to in Article 39, which must be subjected to specific rules of use in relation to the protection objectives provided».

For Natura 2000 network sites, their management plans or conservation measures may well provide for regulations that are more restrictive than forestry rules.

Therefore, in both cases, unrestricted timber harvesting may be prohibited or subjected to an authorization regime through safeguard rules.

2.2.– Regarding the challenge to Article 13(2), the Region preliminarily objects that the questions are inadmissible due to the failure to indicate the constitutional parameters and interposed rules allegedly violated, resulting in the generality of the censure.

On the merits, it observes that, for present purposes, the only difference between the new text of Article 70(2) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000 and the amended text consists in having attributed to the Region—in addition to the training and professional updating functions for personnel operating at any level within the AIB, already provided for under the former letter f) of paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Article 70—the function of «specialization» of the same personnel, a function now contemplated, together with the other two, under the new letter h) of the same provision.

Consequently, the framework of functions previously attributed to the Region in the matter of training activities has in no way changed.

Furthermore, the challenged provision did not modify the regulation of the Region’s relations with the National Fire Corps.

Premising that Framework Law No. 353 of 2000 on forest fires entrusts regions with competence in personnel training (Article 1(2)), while also providing that training needs and related programming must be contemplated in the AIB plan (Article 3(3)(m)) and that training activities must be carried out through theoretical-practical courses for the organization of which regions may also avail themselves of the National Fire Corps (Article 5(2) and (3)), the Region highlights that the specific regulation of its relations with said Corps is governed, in line with the indicated state provisions, by Article 71(3) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000—which was not affected by the legislative amendment in question—according to which «[f]or carrying out active firefighting, the Region may also avail itself, with the attributions and modalities provided for by the AIB plan, of resources, means, and personnel of the National Fire Corps, on the basis of specific agreements and conventions».

2.3.– Regarding the challenge to Article 17(2), which replaced paragraph 2 of Article 74 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000 concerning AIB planning, the Region observes, firstly, that the element referred to in Article 3(3)(c-bis) of Law No. 353 of 2000—which the appellant complains is not indicated among the mandatory contents of the AIB plan provided by the challenged provision—is instead clearly identified in letter d), number 2), of the new paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Article 74, where it is specified that the AIB plan defines, inter alia, «[…] d) interventions and activities relating to the prediction, prevention, and active firefighting of forest fires and, in particular: […] 2) areas treated using the prescribed burning technique».

Furthermore, the indication of the further element referred to in Article 3(3)(f) of Law No. 353 of 2000 has not been omitted, as compliance with this prescription is ensured by Article 76(1)(a) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000—which was not affected by the legislative amendment under examination—according to which «[t]he forestry regulations shall define: a) actions and omissions that may determine, even potentially, the ignition of a fire, prohibitions, prescriptions, and precautions to be adopted, as well as any exemptions». Therefore, the regional legal system entrusts the identification of actions and non-compliances referred to in Article 3(3)(f) of Law No. 353 of 2000 to legislation of a higher rank than the AIB plan, resulting in an enhancement of protections in environmental and safety matters, in compliance with Article 117(2)(h) and (s) of the Constitution.

Finally, neither can the indication of the element referred to in Article 3(3)(l) of Law No. 353 of 2000 be considered omitted, given that:

– «silvicultural cleaning operations» fall within the category of «direct prevention interventions to mitigate the risk of ignition and propagation of forest fires», which Article 74(2)(d), number 1), as replaced by the challenged provision, contemplates among «interventions and activities relating to the prediction, prevention, and active firefighting of forest fires» defined by the AIB plan;

– with regard to the provision for «substitute interventions for non-compliant owners» regarding silvicultural cleaning and forest maintenance operations, Articles 10 and 11 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000—unaffected by the legislative amendment under examination—already govern the scope of public forestry interventions, also encompassing operations and services aimed at suppressing forest fires, which are equivalent to interventions of public utility;

– with regard to «urban-rural interface zones», the challenged regional provision also encompasses this sphere, as it concerns the entire regional territory.

2.4.– Regarding the challenge to Article 17(3), the Region observes, first of all, that pursuant to Article 74(1) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, AIB planning consists of the AIB operational plan approved by the Regional Executive (Giunta regionale), the annual AIB territorial operational programs approved by the competent structure of the Regional Executive, which contain the local AIB plans prepared by unions of municipalities and regional park authorities, as well as the specific AIB prevention plans referred to in Article 74-bis of the same Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000.

Consequently, the annual update of the AIB plan, whose omitted provision is complained of by the appellant, takes place through the updating of the annual territorial operational programs concerning operational services activated in the territory.

Furthermore, the Region highlights that pursuant to paragraph 3 of the aforementioned Article 74, the Regional Executive may annually update or supplement the AIB plan, in particular with regard to: a) verification of hazard indices; b) localization of works and plants referred to in paragraph 2, letter d), number 5 [id est, works and plants intended for fire prevention and extinction], to be carried out within the framework of regional programming […]».

Therefore, Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, when read once again as a whole and not with reference to isolated provisions, already provides for the annual updating of the AIB plan prescribed by the interposed rule of Article 3(3) of Law No. 353 of 2000.

2.5.– Regarding the challenge to Articles 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, the Region observes, firstly, that the regional legislature—as can be inferred from the preamble to Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025—intended to ensure management more responsive to the needs that have emerged in recent years within the scope of authorization competence for hydrogeological restrictions. This was done by attributing such competence to the unions of municipalities that succeeded mountain communities, the Metropolitan City of Florence, and other unions of municipalities identified by regional legislation on local authorities, even within the territories of regional parks and nature reserves, considering that these same entities already exercise the same competence in the rest of the Tuscan territory.

Secondly, the Region, after recalling the transfers from the State to the regions of functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions, arranged starting from 1972 and expanded by Article 69(4) of 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), observes that authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions are attributable to the matter of agriculture and forests. Originally attributed to the concurrent legislative competence of the State and the regions, this matter now falls, following the reform of Title V of the Constitution, among the residual legislative competences of the regions.

This latter attribution of competence was confirmed precisely by Article 61(5) of the Environmental Code, invoked by the appellant as an interposed rule. The provision contained therein—according to which functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions are «entirely» exercised by regions—can only refer to the overall exercise of such functions, thus also including the legislative function in forestry matters, which historically encompasses hydrogeological restrictions.

Consequently, the Region was fully entitled to attribute related managerial competences by law.

3.– The Tuscany Region filed an explanatory memorandum on April 27, 2026, reiterating the defense arguments previously set forth.
The Proceedings in Law

4.– By the appeal indicated in the heading (appeal reg. no. 41 of 2025), the President of the Council of Ministers brought proceedings concerning the constitutionality of various provisions of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025.

5.– The appellant challenged, firstly, Article 9(1) of the aforementioned regional law.

This provision replaced paragraph 6 of Article 47 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, establishing that timber harvesting operations «that may be carried out without authorization or declaration shall not exceed an area of 3,000 square meters per property and per year, shall be exclusively intended for self-consumption with a prohibition on commercialization, and must be carried out in compliance with the technical rules set forth in the forestry regulations».

The challenged regional provision, by tripling from 1,000 to 3,000 square meters the annual area exempted from any authorization or declaration requirement, subject only to the condition that the harvesting is intended exclusively for self-consumption, allegedly violates Articles 9 and 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of protection of the environment, the ecosystem, and cultural heritage, as it would reduce the minimum protection standards established by state legislation, making effective monitoring by competent bodies impossible, including with regard to authorization procedures connected to environmental or landscape assessments.

Conflict would exist with the following interposed norms:

– Article 7(3) of Legislative Decree No. 34 of 2018, which requires regions, when regulating silvicultural practices, to always guarantee environmental protection and the sustainability of forest management;

– Law No. 394 of 1991 and Presidential Decree No. 357 of 1997, as no «safeguard clause» is provided for protected natural areas and Natura 2000 network sites.

6.– As a preliminary matter, the questions brought in relation to the interposed rules of Law No. 394 of 1991 on protected areas and Presidential Decree No. 357 of 1997 implementing Council Directive 92/43/EEC of May 21, 1992, on the conservation of natural and semi-natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (the so-called Habitats Directive), must be declared inadmissible.

The appellant, in a entirely generic manner, refers to entire bodies of legislation without specific indication of the state provisions alleged to be violated. Consequently, the appellant failed to meet the burden of defining the questions in their exact normative terms and providing specific reasoning for the censures—a burden of particular importance in principal appeals, the failure of which leads to a declaration of inadmissibility.

7.– Before examining the merits with regard to the alleged conflict with Article 7(3) of Legislative Decree No. 34 of 2018, the reference jurisprudential framework must be briefly reconstructed.

This Court has consistently affirmed that the matter of environmental and landscape protection, bearing upon a complex and unitary legal interest, is purposive in character and naturally transversal, thereby capable of impacting regional competences. It has also affirmed that this matter, falling within the exclusive legislative competence of the State, constitutes a limit to the protection of other public interests assigned to the concurrent and residual legislative competences of the regions (in particular, those of spatial planning, health protection, civil protection, enhancement of cultural and environmental assets, and agriculture and forests). Nonetheless, regions retain the faculty to adopt, in the exercise of such competences, environmental protection rules that are higher than the minimum standards established by state legislation, save for cases where the latter has established points of balance reflecting a more complex and articulated ratio (among many, judgments no. 16 of 2024, no. 163 and no. 148 of 2023, no. 229, no. 191, no. 144, no. 24, and no. 21 of 2022).

This orientation has also been expressed in relation to woods and forests.

In judgment no. 105 of 2008, this Court affirmed that «[a] characteristic proper to woods and forests is that of expressing an environmental multifunctionality, in addition to an economic-productive function. It can therefore be affirmed that upon the same legal good—woods and forests—there insist two legal interests: an environmental legal interest with reference to the environmental multifunctionality of the wood, and a patrimonial legal interest with reference to the economic-productive function of the wood itself (on the existence of multiple legal interests protected over the unitary environmental good, see judgment no. 378 of 2007)».

The specific regional legislative competence regarding woods and forests is the residual one under Article 117(4) of the Constitution, to which the matter of agriculture and forests is traceable, which prior to the reform of Title V of Part II of the Constitution was attributed to the concurrent legislative competence of the State and regions. As just stated, constitutional jurisprudence has limited this competence, regarding forestry matters, «to the economic-productive function of the wooded heritage, whereas environmental profiles are ascribed to "protection of the environment and the ecosystem”, which falls within the exclusive state competence pursuant to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution» (judgment no. 170 of 2019).

8.– The questions are not founded.

Article 47 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, entitled «Authorization for harvesting», provides in paragraph 2 that «[t]imber harvesting operations, whether for utilization or intended for any other purpose, are subject to authorization by the entities referred to in Article 3-ter, paragraph 1» of the same Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000 (namely, authorization by the unions of municipalities that succeeded mountain communities, the Metropolitan City of Florence, and other unions of municipalities identified by regional legislation on local autonomies). Subsequent paragraph 4 establishes that «[t]he forestry regulations identify the cases in which the issuance of the authorization referred to in paragraph 2 may take place via constructive assent (silenzio-assenso), those in which such authorization may be replaced by a harvesting declaration, and harvesting that may be carried out without authorization or declaration».

The new paragraph 6 of the aforementioned Article 47, replaced by the challenged provision, raised from 1,000 to 3,000 square meters the area of timber harvesting that can be carried out annually within each property without authorization or declaration, specifying that such harvesting must be exclusively intended for self-consumption, with a prohibition on commercialization.

This legislative amendment intervened in the absence of state legislation establishing the maximum forest area in which harvesting may be carried out without a qualifying title (authorization, declaration, or similar).

The interposed norm invoked by the appellant (Article 7(3) of Legislative Decree No. 34 of 2018), in regulating forest management activities, does not fix specific measurements nor indicate quantitative criteria, limiting itself to providing that «[r]egions shall define and implement the silvicultural practices most suitable for the treatment of the wood, the needs of environmental, landscape, and soil protection, local socio-economic needs, timber and non-timber productions, and the needs of public enjoyment and use of the forest heritage, including in continuity with traditional or ordinary silvo-pastoral practices».

Regarding «silvicultural practices», which also encompass timber harvesting pursuant to Article 3(2)(c) of Legislative Decree No. 34 of 2018, the State—in the exercise of its exclusive legislative competence under Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution—has thus reserved to regions the power to identify the regulations most suitable for satisfying environmental protection needs, without establishing a minimum protection standard that limits regional legislative competences (in this case, residual competence in agriculture and forests).

In itself, the expansion of the maximum surface area subject to timber harvesting without authorization or declaration does not constitute a violation of the constitutional parameters invoked by the appellant.

The choice concretely made by the regional legislature, in fact, cannot be considered as such unsuitable, or in any case less suitable than the previous one, with respect to the needs of wood protection pursued by the reference state legislation.

On the one hand, it must be considered that, as prescribed by the challenged provision, timber harvesting operations must in any case be carried out «in compliance with the technical rules indicated in the forestry regulations», adopted by the Region «[f]or the purposes of the protection and correct use of the wood and the forest area» (Article 39(1) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000).

On the other hand, what the regional defense affirms is shareable where it criticizes the appellant’s failure to consider the overall amendment of Article 47 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000 made by Article 9 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025—an amendment within which the new paragraph 6 of the aforementioned Article 47 is also situated.

With this amendment, in fact, the regional legislature not only increased from 1,000 to 3,000 square meters the timber harvesting area not subject to authorization or declaration (new paragraph 6), but also eliminated the faculty, granted to the forest owner by previous legislation (former paragraph 6-bis), to carry out independently—hence without availing oneself of an enterprise commissioned to perform the work—harvesting intended for self-consumption over areas greater than 1,000 square meters and less than 1 hectare. Consequently, currently, the same faculty of the owner, implying lesser technical reliability of the executing subject, has been reduced to harvesting up to 3,000 square meters, reasonably coinciding this limit with the surface area that does not require a qualifying title. Above this threshold, harvesting must be carried out, in certain cases, by specialized forestry enterprises registered in the specific list referred to in Article 38-bis of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, to better ensure the correct execution of the work (new paragraph 6-ter), whereas previously this threshold was fixed at the larger surface area of one hectare (former paragraph 6-ter).

Ultimately, the challenged provision, if examined systematically and not atomistically, reveals itself to be part of an overall rationalization of regional regulations on timber harvesting, based on a renewed balancing of interests reserved to the regional legislature, which entails no reduction of mandatory minimum standards of environmental protection—standards which, inter alia, were never determined by the state legislature.

9.– The appellant also challenged Articles 13(2) and 17(2) and (3) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025.

These provisions allegedly violate Article 117(2)(h) and (s) of the Constitution, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competences in the matters of «security» and «protection of the environment, the ecosystem, and cultural heritage», respectively, by conflicting with Article 3(3) of Law No. 353 of 2000.

It is appropriate to proceed with a separate examination of the questions relating to Article 13(2) and those relating to Article 17(2) and (3).

10.– Regarding Article 13(2), the preliminary objection of inadmissibility of the questions raised by the Region must first be examined, according to which the constitutional parameters and state interposed rules whose violation is alleged were not indicated.

The objection is not founded.

The appellant, combining Articles 13(2) and 17(2) and (3) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 in the censures, clearly invoked, also with regard to the first of these provisions, both Article 117(2)(h) and (s) of the Constitution as the constitutional parameters allegedly violated, and Article 3(3) of Law No. 353 of 2000 as the interposed rule expressing the exclusive legislative competences attributed to the State by the mentioned constitutional parameters. This is sufficient to consider the questions admissible.

11.– Secondly, the subject matter of the questions and the grounds of censure must be defined.

The President of the Council of Ministers textually challenges a non-existent letter h) of the aforementioned Article 13(2), but it is clear from the reasoning of the appeal that the questions concern letter h) of paragraph 2 of Article 70 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, which was entirely replaced by the challenged Article 13(2).

Such letter h), upon which the examination must therefore focus, provides that within the framework of regional forest fire fighting activities (AIB), the Region carries out, in particular, «the training, professional updating, and specialization of personnel operating, at any level, within the AIB».

The appellant complains that the regional legislature, in regulating these competences of the Tuscany Region, failed to refer to the training activities contemplated in the «AIB conventions» to be stipulated with the National Fire Corps.

12.– On the merits, the questions are not founded.

According to constitutional jurisprudence, Framework Law No. 353 of 2000, «furthermore integrated several times after 2001 […], dealing with environmental matters, stands today as regulations that cannot be derogated from […] for its aspects connected to the environment, save for the possible raising by Regions of the level of protection» (judgment no. 144 of 2022, referring to the matter of hunting, but with reasoning extensible to all regional legislative powers potentially capable of interfering with environmental protection).

The aforementioned framework law establishes, in Article 3(2)(m), that the regional plan for programming prediction, prevention, and active firefighting activities regarding forest fires shall identify training needs and related programming.

Furthermore, Article 5 of the same framework law, in regulating training activities in the matter of forest fires, establishes that «[r]egions shall oversee, including in an associated form, the organization of technical-practical courses aimed at the preparation of subjects for forest fire prediction, prevention, and active firefighting activities» (paragraph 2) and that for the organization of such courses «regions may also avail themselves of the State Forestry Corps and the National Fire Corps» (paragraph 3).

The state regulatory framework, therefore, does not mandatorily impose upon regions, for the purpose of carrying out the training tasks in question, to avail themselves of the National Fire Corps, providing a mere faculty in this regard.

On the other hand, the challenged provision, which introduced letter h) into the new paragraph 2 of Article 70 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, in no way precludes the Region from stipulating, for the same purpose, specific agreements and conventions with said Corps in order to avail itself of the relevant competences. It therefore neither infringes upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of the environment, the ecosystem, and cultural heritage» nor, for similar reasons, infringes upon state legislative competence in the matter of «security».

13.– Article 17(2) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 affects the text of Article 74 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, which governs «[p]lanning of the AIB» (an acronym, it is recalled, indicating regional forest fire fighting activities).

Paragraph 1 of the aforementioned Article 74 provides that AIB planning consists of the following instruments: the AIB operational plan approved by the Regional Executive; the annual AIB territorial operational programs approved by the competent structure of the Regional Executive, which contain the local AIB plans prepared by unions of municipalities and regional park authorities; the specific AIB prevention plans referred to in Article 74-bis of the same Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000.

The challenged Article 17(2) entirely replaced paragraph 2 of the same Article 74, regulating the content of the AIB operational plan approved by the Regional Executive (the first among the instruments indicated above). It provides that this regional plan «identifies the organization and coordination of the AIB» and «defines, in particular», a series of elements, which are listed in letters a) to l) of the same new paragraph 2.

According to the appellant, this list fails to indicate the elements mandatorily provided for in Article 3(3)(c-bis), (f), and (l) of Framework Law No. 353 of 2000, which identifies the content of the plan «for programming prediction, prevention, and active firefighting activities against forest fires», the approval of which is entrusted to the regions by paragraph 1 of the same Article 3. This allegedly results in an infringement of state legislative competences pursuant to Article 117(2)(h) and (s) of the Constitution, of which the cited state legislation is an expression.

14.– The questions are not founded.

Article 3(3)(c-bis) of Law No. 353 of 2000 establishes that the aforementioned regional plan shall indicate «areas treated using the prescribed burning technique, as defined in Article 4, paragraph 2-bis», of the same law.

The «prescribed burning technique» is a silvicultural technique which, falling among suitable cultural interventions aimed at improving the vegetational structure of natural and forest environments, is used in order to prevent the risk of forest fires, as established by Article 4(2) of Law No. 353 of 2000. According to the definition given by subsequent paragraph 2-bis, this technique implies the treatment of combustibles and is «understood as the expert application of fire on planned surfaces, through the employment of personnel specifically trained in the use of fire and adopting prescriptions and operational procedures previously defined with specific guidelines prepared by the Technical Committee that provides for the preliminary investigation of the National Coordination Plan for technological updating and the enhancement of operational capacity in actions of prediction, prevention, and active firefighting against forest fires […]».

That being said, it is observed that the regional provision under examination, in replacing paragraph 2 of Article 74 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, inserted a new letter d) into it, which at number 2) expressly identifies, among «interventions and activities relating to prediction, prevention, and active firefighting of forest fires», precisely «areas treated using the prescribed burning technique».

Therefore, the omission complained of by the appellant does not exist.

Article 3(3)(f) of Law No. 353 of 2000 establishes that the aforementioned regional plan shall identify «actions and non-compliances with obligations that may determine, even potentially, the ignition of a fire in areas and periods at risk of forest fire referred to in letters c) and d), as well as fires in urban-rural interface zones».

An analogous rule is contained in Article 76 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000 concerning the prevention of forest fires.

Such provision, under letter a) of paragraph 1 (amended by Article 21(1) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025, not challenged by the appellant), provides that the regional forestry regulations shall define «actions and omissions that may determine, even potentially, the ignition of a fire, prohibitions, prescriptions, and precautions to be adopted, as well as any exemptions». According to subsequent letter b) of the same paragraph 1, the regional forestry regulations also define «periods at risk for the development of forest fires, determined on a meteorological-climatic statistical basis and the modalities for defining such periods».

Due to their general scope, extended to all areas and all periods at risk of forest fire, these regional provisions are suitable for satisfying the same prevention needs aimed at by the interposed state norm invoked by the appellant.

Consequently, the questions are not founded in this respect either.

The third omitted element would be that provided for by Article 3(3)(l) of Law No. 353 of 2000, according to which the plan entrusted to the regions’ approval identifies «silvicultural cleaning and forest maintenance operations, with the faculty to provide for substitute interventions for non-compliant owners, in particular in areas at highest risk, including fires in urban-rural interface zones».

However, «silvicultural cleaning and forest maintenance operations» are traceable, as argued by the Tuscany Region, to the broader category of «direct prevention interventions to mitigate the risk of ignition and propagation of forest fires», which Article 74(2)(d), number 1), of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, in the text replaced by the challenged provision, already lists among the elements that must be defined by the AIB plan.

This interpretation is confirmed by the reference state legislation itself, inasmuch as the cited Article 4(2) of Law No. 353 of 2000, in defining the activity of preventing forest fire risk, includes, as seen, «suitable cultural interventions aimed at improving the vegetational structure of natural and forest environments»—interventions to which «silvicultural cleaning and forest maintenance operations» are traceable.

As regards «substitute interventions for non-compliant owners», it is observed that the invoked Article 3(3)(l) of Law No. 353 of 2000 grants regions a mere «faculty to provide», imposing no obligation upon them.

Consequently, the omission of the exercise of this faculty does not result in the injury complained of by the appellant.

The Region’s reference to Articles 10 and 11 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, which govern «public forestry interventions», is in any case pertinent in this regard.

Article 10, after defining such interventions as those that «carry out works and services aimed at protecting, improving, and expanding the woods of Tuscany and guaranteeing their social function» (paragraph 1), indicates among them «works and services aimed at preventing and suppressing forest fires» (paragraph 2, letter i). For the reasons set forth above, works aimed at preventing forest fires must also be understood to include those of cleaning and maintaining woods. In the event of non-compliance by the owner, Article 11 applies, according to which approval of the project for interventions referred to in Article 10 is equivalent to a declaration of public utility (paragraph 1), with the possibility of intervention agreed upon with the land owner, subject to the signing of a «minutes of agreement for their temporary transfer in favor of the entity competent for implementing the interventions themselves» (paragraph 2), or with the possibility of coercive intervention, subject to temporary occupation of the lands, «[w]hen it is not possible to reach an agreement» and «there are serious and recognized processes of degradation, cultural abandonment, or for reasons of public utility or safety» (paragraph 3).

Such provisions configure suitable «substitute interventions for non-compliant owners», thus satisfying the needs underlying the reference state legislation, including those emerging «in areas at highest risk […] of fires in urban-rural interface zones», considering the effectiveness of the measures throughout the Tuscan territory, as likewise observed by the Region.

Hence the lack of foundation of the questions under this profile as well.

15.– Article 17(3) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 affects paragraph 3 of the aforementioned Article 74 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000, which governs the «validity», updating, and integration of the regional AIB plan, whose content is addressed in paragraph 2 of the same Article 74, as seen when examining the previous questions.

In the prior text, paragraph 3 of Article 74 established, in the second sentence, that «[a]nnually the Regional Executive may update or supplement the plan in particular with regard to: […] b) the localization of works and plants referred to in paragraph 2, letter b), number 4», of Article 74.

The works and plants thus referred to were those «intended for the prevention and extinction of fires». Following the total replacement of paragraph 2 of Article 74, the same works and plants are now indicated in the new letter d), number 5), of the same paragraph 2 of Article 74.

The challenged provision adapts to this amendment, establishing that: «[i]n letter b) of paragraph 3 of Article 74 of Regional Law 39/2000, the words: "letter b), number 4)” are replaced by the following: "letter d), number 5)”».

In the appellant’s view, the Tuscan legislature, in so providing, omitted to include the mandatory requirement for the «annual revision» of the AIB operational plan, established by Article 3(3) of Law No. 353 of 2000, which under this profile would also define a minimum standard of environmental protection that cannot be derogated from by the regions and is likewise aimed at safeguarding public safety.

This would result in a violation of Article 117(2)(h) and (s) of the Constitution.

16.– The questions are not founded.

As seen, Article 17(3) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 limited itself to adapting the text of paragraph 3 of Article 74 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000 to the new formulation of paragraph 2 of the same Article 74. In particular, the legislative intervention did not in any way affect the provision concerning the mere optional nature of the Regional Executive’s power to proceed annually with updating or supplementing the plan. Only of this provision, in fact, could conflict be predicated with Article 3(3) of Law No. 353 of 2000, according to which the plan is «subject to annual revision»—a phrase that evokes the mandatory nature of such periodic verification, aimed at identifying appropriate updates or supplementations.

The challenged provision, therefore, does not have the injurious effect projected by the appellant.

17.– Finally, Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 (which amend, respectively, Articles 14(3), 15(2)(d), 31(3), and 52(3) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 30 of 2015), as well as Article 29 of the same regional law (which amends Article 20(2) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 65 of 1997) provide, by suppressing or replacing individual normative fragments, that in regional parks and nature reserves, authorizations for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions are issued by the entities referred to in Article 3-ter of Tuscany Regional Law No. 39 of 2000—namely, the unions of municipalities that succeeded mountain communities, the Metropolitan City of Florence, and other unions of municipalities identified by regional legislation on local autonomies.

In the appellant’s view, these provisions, which are closely connected in their prescriptive content, allegedly violate Articles 9 and 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of the environment, the ecosystem, and cultural heritage», as they conflict with the interposed rule set forth in Article 61(5) of the Environmental Code, according to which «[t]he functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions referred to in Royal Decree-Law No. 3267 of December 30, 1923, are entirely exercised by regions», with the consequent impossibility for regions to further reallocate the same administrative functions to sub-regional entities.

18.– Before examining the merits, the reference normative and jurisprudential framework must be briefly recalled.

Restrictions for hydrogeological purposes, governed by Royal Decree-Law No. 3267 of December 30, 1923 (Reorganization and reform of legislation on woods and mountainous lands) (the so-called "Serpieri Law”), are placed upon «lands of any nature and destination» which, «as a result of forms of utilization conflicting with the rules of Articles 7, 8, and 10 [recte: 9]» of the same Royal Decree-Law No. 3267 of 1923, «may suffer denudations, lose stability, or disturb the water regime with public damage» (Article 1).

This is a generalized measure of soil defense, having the purpose of preventing the public damage provided for by the aforementioned Article 1 and entailing significant limitations on the use of restricted lands. Among these limitations, the one provided for by Article 7 of Royal Decree-Law No. 3267 of 1923 is relevant here, pursuant to which interventions transforming lands subject to restriction are subject to prior authorization by the Forestry Committee and to the modalities prescribed by it, case by case, for the purpose of preventing hydrogeological damage (the other limitations consist of the obligation to observe prescriptions and restrictions ordered by the competent administrative authorities: Articles 8 and 9).

We are in the presence of penetrating regulations conforming property ownership. In particular, prior authorization of interventions on restricted assets constitutes an essential element of such conformation (these considerations were recently set forth by judgment no. 100 of 2026).

This Court has repeatedly emphasized that activities relating to soil defense, in particular those relating to safeguarding against risks deriving from hydrogeological instability, must be traced back to the matter of environmental protection, of exclusive state legislative competence, pursuant to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution (among many, again judgment no. 100 of 2026 and judgments no. 138 of 2021, no. 109 of 2011, no. 341 of 2010, no. 254, no. 246, and no. 232 of 2009).

As seen (point 7), environmental protection is, per constant constitutional jurisprudence, a transversal matter that can intersect areas reserved to concurrent or residual regional legislative competence, and it is a matter based on the purpose of environmental protection, hence regions, in the exercise of their legislative competences, may issue rules not in line with those of the State only if they pursue the purpose of environmental protection by improving state protection standards.

Article 61 of the Environmental Code, entitled «Competences of the regions» and contained in Part Three of the same code entitled «Rules in the matter of soil defense and fight against desertification, protection of waters from pollution, and management of water resources», provided in paragraph 5 that «[t]he functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions referred to in Royal Decree-Law No. 3267 of December 30, 1923, shall be entirely exercised by the regions».

This Court has clarified that, within the scope of exclusive legislative competence pursuant to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, only the state legislature is empowered to define the organization of corresponding administrative functions, including through the allocation of competences to entities other than municipalities—to which they must be considered generally attributed according to the criterion expressed by Article 118(1) of the Constitution—whenever the need for unitary exercise of the function transcends such territorial sphere of governance (judgments no. 151 and no. 2 of 2024, no. 160 of 2023, and no. 189 of 2021).

Consequently, administrative functions traceable to matters under Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution which, based on an assessment guided by the principles of subsidiarity, differentiation, and adequacy, have been conferred by the State upon the region, may not be further reallocated by the latter to a sub-regional entity, as such an initiative would entail a modification, by means of a regional legislative act, of the allocation of competences mandatorily established by national law.

On the other hand, this Court has further observed with particular reference to the matter of environmental protection, «the exclusive state legislative power ex Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution expresses inescapable needs for the protection of a good, such as the environment, which is unitary and of primary value (judgment no. 189 of 2021 and, cited therein, judgments no. 246 of 2017 and no. 641 of 1987), which would be frustrated were the region to be granted "the faculty to indiscriminately entrust its care to a territorial entity of smaller dimensions, in derogation from the adequacy assessment performed by the state legislature by identifying the regional level” (judgment no. 160 of 2023)» (judgment no. 151 of 2024).

19.– That being said, the questions are founded.

The regulations concerning the prior authorization of interventions to be carried out on lands subject to hydrogeological restriction are traceable—even more so where the interventions concern, as in this case, lands included within regional parks and nature reserves—to the matter «protection of the environment, the ecosystem, and cultural heritage» under Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, reserved to the exclusive legislative competence of the State.

Due to its «transversal» and purposive nature, this matter can intersect spheres reserved to the concurrent or residual legislative competence of the regions, such as spatial planning or agriculture and forests, which are potentially relevant here, thereby constituting a limit to such competences.

The State, in the exercise of the invoked exclusive legislative competence expressed by Article 61(5) of the Environmental Code, conferred administrative functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions upon the regions, based on an assessment guided by the principles of subsidiarity, differentiation, and adequacy.

Among such functions, those relating to the issuance of authorization for the purposes of hydrogeological restrictions pursuant to Article 7 of Royal Decree-Law No. 3267 of 1923 must undoubtedly be considered included.

In line with this regulatory framework, previous regional regulations attributed the competence to issue authorization to the Region itself regarding regional nature reserves, and to individual park authorities regarding regional parks. In this latter regard, the attribution of competence to park authorities, formally external to the organization of regional offices, could not be considered dissonant from the allocation choice made by the State, since these are entities that «cannot however be considered extraneous to regional competence and structure» (judgment no. 67 of 1997).

The challenged provisions attributed the same competence to unions of municipalities that succeeded mountain communities, the Metropolitan City of Florence, and other unions of municipalities identified by regional legislation on local autonomies.

They thus reallocated administrative functions traceable to the matter under Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution to sub-regional entities.

Such an initiative entails the modification, by means of a regional legislative act, of the allocation of competences mandatorily established by national law. As this Court affirmed in the precedents cited above (point 18), only the state legislature is empowered to define the organization of corresponding administrative functions, including through the allocation of competences to entities other than municipalities, whenever the need for unitary exercise of the function transcends such territorial sphere of governance. Indeed, inescapable needs for the protection of a unitary good, such as the environment, would be frustrated were the region to be granted the faculty to entrust its care to a territorial entity of smaller dimensions, in derogation from the adequacy assessment performed by the state legislature by identifying the regional level.

The Region argues that Article 61(5) of the Environmental Code, in providing that functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions are «entirely» exercised by regions, would also encompass related legislative functions, in this case traceable to the residual matter "agriculture and forests”, so that the Region was fully entitled to attribute managerial competences by law.

The argument is not shareable.

The adverb «entirely» contained in the aforementioned paragraph 5 of Article 61 does not have the meaning projected by the Region. It refers solely to administrative functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions, providing for their transfer to the regions with none remaining with the State (or other entities).

It is relevant in this sense that preceding parts of Article 61 of the Environmental Code provide for the transfer to regions of other functions of an evident administrative nature, while reserving some to the State in specific sectors (paragraphs 1(f), 2, 3 second sentence, and 4). The transfer to regions of administrative functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions is instead integral.

A further element usable for interpretive purposes can be inferred from the text of the final paragraph of Article 61, according to which «[a]ll other administrative functions already transferred or delegated to the regions remain unaffected». This closing norm presupposes that in the preceding paragraphs—hence also in paragraph 5—Article 61 of the Environmental Code deals only with administrative functions.

The Region also observes that the challenged provisions intended to ensure, within regional parks and nature reserves, more rational management of authorization competences for hydrogeological restrictions, considering that the same sub-regional entities already exercise the same competence in the rest of the Tuscan territory.

This defense argument is likewise unshareable.

The alleged reasons of managerial opportunity for the regional legislative intervention could not in any case affect the violation of rules concerning the distribution of legislative competences between the State and regions, which stems from the reallocation to sub-regional entities of administrative functions mandatorily attributed by the State to the regions. Nor can the existence of such a violation be influenced by the fact that in the rest of the Tuscan territory, outside protected natural areas and regional parks, the competence in question already belongs to the same entities on the basis of prior regional provisions.

The unconstitutionality of Articles 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025 must therefore be declared. Administrative functions relating to hydrogeological restrictions must be carried out by the Region, or by entities included in the regional structure, by reason of the need for their unitary exercise, as established by Article 61(5) of the Environmental Code and Article 62(3) of the Statute of the Tuscany Region, approved in first reading on May 6, 2004, and in second reading on July 19, 2004.

on these grounds

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1) declares the unconstitutionality of Articles 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of Tuscany Region Law No. 49 of August 20, 2025 (Multifunctional management of forests and forest ecosystems, sustainable development, environmental protection and enhancement, powers regarding hydrogeological restrictions in regional parks and nature reserves. Amendments to regional laws 39/2000, 30/2015, and 65/1997);

2) declares inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 9(1) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025, brought, with reference to Articles 9 and 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, in relation to Law No. 394 of December 6, 1991 (Framework law on protected areas) and Presidential Decree No. 357 of September 8, 1997 (Regulations implementing Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural and semi-natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna), by the President of the Council of Ministers with the appeal indicated in the heading;

3) declares not founded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 9(1) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025, brought, with reference to Articles 9 and 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, in relation to Article 7(3) of Legislative Decree No. 34 of April 3, 2018 (Consolidated act on forests and forest supply chains), by the President of the Council of Ministers with the appeal indicated in the heading;

4) declares not founded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Articles 13(2) and 17(2) and (3) of Tuscany Regional Law No. 49 of 2025, brought, with reference to Article 117(2)(h) and (s) of the Constitution, by the President of the Council of Ministers with the appeal indicated in the heading.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on May 19, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Marco D’ALBERTI, Author

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed at the Registry on July 23, 2026