JUDGMENT NO. 150

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 delivered the following

JUDGMENT

in proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 6 April 1984 (Implementing provisions of the special statute for the Trentino-Alto Adige region concerning the establishment of the Regional Administrative Court of Trento and the Autonomous Section of Bolzano), brought by the Council of State, First Section, in the context of rendering an opinion on an extraordinary petition, in the proceedings pending between A. A., the Municipality of Badia, and A. V., by means of the opinion dated 9 December 2025, registered under No. 261 of the Register of Orders 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 3, 1st Special Series, of the year 2026.

Having regard to the appearance in proceedings of A. V., as well as the intervention brief filed by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano;

having heard Judge Rapporteur Maria Alessandra Sandulli at the public hearing of 9 June 2026;

having heard counsels Roberto Nania and Igor Janes for A. V. and Giandomenico Falcon for the Autonomous Province of Bolzano;

deliberated in chambers on 10 June 2026.

The Law in Fact

1.– By opinion No. 1381 of 9 December 2025, registered under No. 261 of the Register of Orders 2025, the Council of State, First Section, raised questions as to the constitutional legitimacy—with reference to Article 90 of Presidential Decree No. 670 of 31 August 1972 (Approval of the consolidated text of constitutional laws concerning the special statute for Trentino-Alto Adige) and Articles 3, first paragraph, 5, 24, first paragraph, and 87, first paragraph, of the Constitution—of Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 6 April 1984 (Implementing provisions of the special statute for the Trentino-Alto Adige region concerning the establishment of the Regional Administrative Court of Trento and the Autonomous Section of Bolzano), which provides that «[i]n matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano, the extraordinary petition to the President of the Republic shall not be permitted».

2.– The referring court states that it is called upon to rule on the extraordinary petition to the President of the Republic brought by A. A. for the annulment of the building permit issued by the Municipality of Badia to A. V. in relation to energy retrofitting and extension works concerning a terraced house adjacent to the one owned by the petitioner. The opinion reports that the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport had transmitted the counter-arguments of the Municipality, the briefs of the opposing party and of the petitioner, and the investigative report, raising an objection as to the inadmissibility of the petition pursuant to the aforementioned Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 and, in any event, the inadmissibility, due to lack of interest, of part of its first ground of challenge, while also arguing that the petition was unfounded on the merits.

Following the hearing of 16 October 2025, the Council of State deemed relevant and not manifestly unfounded the question of the constitutional legitimacy of the preclusion provided for by the cited implementing provision, due to conflict with the aforementioned statutory and constitutional parameters.

3.– As regards relevance, the referring court highlights that «even if the objection of inadmissibility due to lack of interest formulated by the Ministry regarding the part of the first ground of appeal were deemed well-founded […], the ground in question would still have to be adjudicated on the merits to that extent, no grounds of inadmissibility having been raised, nor being discernible, other than that based on the rule whose constitutional legitimacy is called into question […]», and that, therefore, resolving the doubts concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 «is essential for the adjudication of both grounds of appeal into which the extraordinary petition is divided», considering that, should the provision in question be applied, the petition would have to be declared inadmissible.

The referring court rules out the possibility of proceeding with a constitutionally-oriented interpretation of the cited Article 7, third paragraph, aimed at limiting the preclusion of the extraordinary remedy to disputes assigned to the non-derogable jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano, among which the dispute brought by the petition at hand would not fall. The reference to «matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano», even in light of the case-law of the Council of State, both in its consultative and judicial capacity, is «indeed unequivocal in encompassing both the ordinary criteria relating to the seat (Art. 3, co. 2, no. 1) and the territorial effectiveness of the act (Art. 3, co. 2, no. 2) as well as the matters attributed by the Statute to the non-derogable jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section, expressly safeguarded by Art. 3, co. 2». In this latter regard, the referral order specifies that «[t]hese consist, in particular, of petitions brought by regional and provincial councillors (as well as, in certain hypotheses, by municipal councillors) against administrative acts of bodies and organs of the Public Administration based within the Region, deemed to be in breach of the principle of equality of citizens as members of a linguistic group, pursuant to Article 92, paragraph 1 of the Statute» and that the one just described «is the sole scenario with respect to which the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section is classified as "non-derogable" (cf. Art. 10 of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984, which refers to Art. 9)», although there are other scenarios in which the Statute assigns certain specific matters to the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section (without, however, classifying them in terms of non-derogability) (refusal to enroll a pupil in a school in the province of Bolzano: Art. 19, paragraph 3 of the Statute; approval by arbitral award of chapters of the regional and provincial budgets which fail to obtain the majority votes of a linguistic group, where voting by linguistic groups is required, in the event that the special procedure provided for this purpose within the assembly body does not yield a positive outcome: Arts. 84 and 91, paragraph 4 of the Statute), but reiterates that «[i]t could not […] be held» that the preclusion in question operates «solely with respect to this sector of powers […]».

4.– With regard to non-manifest unfoundedness, the Council of State doubts, firstly, the compatibility of the challenged provision with Article 90 of the special statute, which provides that «[i]n Trentino-Alto Adige a regional administrative justice tribunal shall be established with an autonomous section for the province of Bolzano, in accordance with the regulations to be established in this regard», deferring to the implementing provisions the definition of the «organization» of the aforementioned tribunal.

According to the referral order, the «reserved and separate» jurisdiction outlined by the aforementioned Article 90, delegated to the relevant implementing provisions, would «therefore be limited to governing the organization of the Regional Tribunal» and would not appear «capable of being extended so far as to preclude recourse to a remedy such as the extraordinary petition to the Head of State, provided for generaliter by State law». This Court has also ruled along these lines when, in assessing the compatibility with Article 90 of the Special Statute for the Trentino-Alto Adige Region and with Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 of State rules introducing functional jurisdiction for the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, it noted that «the content of the statutory implementing legislation may relate "exclusively to organizational aspects of the two indicated Tribunals" (Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 239 of 26 June 2007)». Furthermore, the fact that, in the original draft of the implementing decree prepared by the Council of State (opinion of the General Assembly of 31 January 1973), there was no trace of the preclusion would corroborate «the assumption that it manifestly exceeds the scope of the matter remitted by the Statute to the implementing provisions and that, therefore, it conflicts with the Statute itself».

4.1.– From another perspective, Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 would breach the principle of equality enshrined in Article 3 of the Constitution, by precluding only «individuals intending to challenge an act issued by an organ of an Administration based in the province of Bolzano, or whose effectiveness is in any event circumscribed within the provincial territory, from availing themselves of a remedy accessible to anyone intending to challenge an act not falling within the aforementioned categories». Such a disparity in treatment could not be justified by the need to protect linguistic minorities, given that the entitlement granted to «German-speaking citizens of the province of Bolzano» to «use their language in dealings with judicial offices», recognized by Article 100 of the special statute, acquires no relevance for the purposes of the issue at hand. The delimitation of the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano would depend, in fact, in these scenarios upon elements (origin of the challenged act from an organ based in the Autonomous Province, territorially limited effectiveness of the act) «that have nothing to do with the language spoken by the petitioner, since it is entirely plausible that an Italian-speaking petitioner (or one who in any event does not intend to avail himself of the option to use the German language) might challenge an act adopted by an organ based in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (or an act with effects limited to the territory of the aforementioned province) […]». It is furthermore relevant that an analogous provision is not laid down for other regions with special statutes «in which the need to protect the linguistic minorities present therein is likewise keenly felt—to the extent of constituting one of the elements justifying the recognition of special autonomy to them (reference is made, in particular, to Valle d'Aosta and Friuli-Venezia Giulia)».

The referring court adds that, even assuming a correlation could be identified between the preclusion in question and the protection of linguistic minorities, the principles of equality and reasonableness would nonetheless be breached, inasmuch as the impossibility of availing oneself of the extraordinary petition would entail «a mere prejudice [for the petitioner], represented by the preclusion of recourse to an alternative remedy to the judicial one […] and to the advantages associated with such an alternative remedy: the longer limitation period (one hundred and twenty days […], instead of the ordinary sixty-day term […]) provided for bringing an action for annulment and the possibility of submitting the petition personally, without the assistance of a defense counsel». The preclusion would not in truth satisfy any interest «other than the "abstract" interest […] of the legal system that certain disputes be decided by organs whose composition ensures compliance with specific criteria of representation of linguistic groups». Nor could it be deemed justified by the necessity «to ensure that other parties involved in the dispute—namely, the Administration that adopted the challenged act and any opposing parties—can benefit from the particular composition of the judicial organs seized of the judicial appeal». Indeed, should the extraordinary petition be permitted, the parties in question could avail themselves «of the (now generalized) option to lodge an objection pursuant to Article 48 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, thereby achieving the transfer […] precisely to that judicial forum capable of ensuring the specific composition, in terms of the belonging of the panel members to linguistic groups, provided for by Articles 91 and 93 of the Statute and the relevant implementing provisions».

Moreover, the need to guarantee the presence on the panel seized of the extraordinary petition of a member belonging to the German-speaking or Ladin-speaking group could be ensured through «an extensive interpretation» or «an analogous application» of Article 93 of the special statute (according to which the panels seized of appellate judgments against decisions of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano must include a councillor belonging to the German or Ladin linguistic minority group), or of the implementing provision which provides that «[o]ne of the State Councillors belonging to the German-speaking group […] must be part of the panel of the section referred to in Article 17, paragraph 28, of Law No. 127 of 15 May 1997, when the latter is seized of matters concerning the province of Bolzano» (Art. 14, fifth paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984). In any event, a consequential declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 14, fifth and sixth paragraphs, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 could be envisaged, to the extent that they do not establish that at least one of the State Councillors belonging to the German-speaking group must be part of the panel seized of the extraordinary petition.

4.2.– The challenged provision would also breach Article 24, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

The referring court notes in this regard that, as a result of Law No. 69 of 18 June 2009 (Provisions for economic development, simplification, competitiveness, and civil trial matters), certain amendments were made to the rules governing the extraordinary petition which partially assimilated it to a judicial remedy. In the face of such amendments, this Court has indeed «maintained the qualification of the institution in terms of (no longer an administrative petition, but rather) an administrative adjudicatory remedy», thus leading administrative case-law to configure the extraordinary petition as «an "adjudicatory" remedy, alternative to the judicial one, with which it shares only certain structural and functional traits». Such a classification has not nonetheless prevented it from declaring constitutionally illegitimate, for conflict with Articles 3 and 24 of the Constitution, Article 9, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 373 of 24 December 2003 (Implementing provisions of the Special Statute for the Sicilian Region concerning the exercise within the region of the functions pertaining to the Council of State), to the extent that it allowed the President of the Sicilian Region to decide the extraordinary petition in a manner differing from the opinion rendered by the Council of Administrative Justice for the Sicilian Region, on the premise that the «contraction of the set of remedies and guarantees recognized to the petitioner in proceedings before the President of the Sicilian Region, compared to one who avails himself of the equivalent national remedy, conflicts with Article 3 of the Constitution and, without suitable justification, negatively reflects upon the protection of rights and legitimate interests referred to in Article 24 of the Constitution».

4.3.– Lastly, the referring court alleges the breach of Articles 5 and 87, first paragraph, of the Constitution, insofar as they respectively «establish the principles of the unity and indivisibility of the Republic and provide that the President of the Republic […] represents national unity», because the challenged provision would preclude the Head of State from exercising his own function within a portion of the national territory, thereby compromising the unity and indivisibility of the Republic.

5.– Upon entering an appearance in the proceedings, the opposing party in the main proceedings raised an objection as to the inadmissibility of the questions, noting that, according to the referring court itself, «any substantially "additive" intervention by the Constitutional Court […] would not be sufficient for the purpose: an additional regulatory innovation would in fact be required, namely the provision that the hypothetical panel […] called upon to formulate the opinion on the extraordinary petition concerning measures localized in Bolzano must include a member belonging to the German-speaking (or Ladin-speaking) group». In the face of a potential ruling of unconstitutionality, the Council of State has indeed put forward interpretive solutions, or a consequential declaration of unconstitutionality, aimed at ensuring the presence in the panels seized of the extraordinary petition of a councillor belonging to the linguistic minority group. The «argumentative flow» of the referral order would therefore be «contradictory or at least perplexed», rendering the request addressed to this Court «uncertain and doubtful». In any event, «legislative action would in any case be required, through the prescribed procedures, in order to reconcile, following such a demanding alteration of the existing system, the rationale of cultural/linguistic protection underlying it».

5.1.– On the merits, the question raised with reference to Article 90 of the special statute would be unfounded since that provision «relates exclusively to judicial organs (as stated in Title IX of the Statute itself, in which [it] is inserted […])» and from it «no prescriptive value can be derived with reference to the different matter of the extraordinary petition, let alone any obligation to provide for it as an alternative remedy to the judicial one». The preclusion of such a remedy is aimed at the implementation of the aforementioned statute and, in particular, at «preserving the unmistakable characteristics of administrative justice in Alto Adige and the role played by it in the terms described above».

5.2.– Similarly, there would be no breach of Article 3 of the Constitution, since the preclusion from availing oneself of the extraordinary petition in matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano finds its rationale «in the need to refer the related disputes at first instance to a judge shaped by the specific territorial reality and, as such, capable of ensuring the most appropriate judicial protection».

5.3.– As regards the alleged breach of Article 24 of the Constitution, the extraordinary petition is not provided for in the Constitution and the right of action and defense against the public administration is in any event «solely correlated to special administrative jurisdiction […]».

5.4.– With reference, lastly, to the breach of Articles 5 and 87, first paragraph, of the Constitution, it should be considered that «the task of the President of the Republic as representative of national unity is placed in a dimension that is exquisitely political and institutional» and that, therefore, «the reference to a hypothetical decision-making function regarding […] administrative disputes […]» does not fall within it.

6.– On 10 February 2026, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano filed an intervention brief in the present proceedings, which this Court declared admissible by Order No. 67 of 2026.

6.1.– The Autonomous Province raised an objection as to the inadmissibility of the questions by reason of their «perplexed» and «contradictory» nature, noting that the invoked declaration of unconstitutionality «could lead to an even more serious situation of constitutional illegitimacy, with reference both to Article 6 of the Constitution and the opening part of Article 4 of the Statute of Autonomy (which is also of constitutional rank, according to which national interests "include that of protecting local linguistic minorities") […]», since, unlike what is provided for appellate panels, for panels seized of extraordinary petitions concerning the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, the presence of a councillor belonging to the linguistic minority group is not guaranteed. In any event, any integration of the panels in question with a German-speaking or Ladin-speaking member would be inadequate compared to the degree of protection enjoyed by protected linguistic communities in first and second-instance proceedings. In the face of a judicial appeal, such communities have, in fact, «the guarantee of a prior first-instance trial conducted in the special composition, and furthermore of a special composition, albeit of lesser intensity, even in appellate proceedings», whereas in the extraordinary petition procedure "corrected" by the hypothesized integration, «there would merely be the integration of a single member without any prior trial at the local level […]».

6.2.– The questions would also be inadmissible for «insufficient reconstruction of the regulatory framework», inasmuch as the referring court failed to consider the specific additional powers that the statute of autonomy and the related implementing provisions confer upon the Regional Administrative Justice Tribunal, which concern acts detrimental to the principle of equality between groups, the so-called budget guarantee, the use of language in dealings with the public administration, school enrollment, and the recognition of the representativeness of trade unions formed exclusively by workers belonging to linguistic minorities. The specific peculiarities of the aforementioned additional powers and their implications regarding the protection of linguistic minorities were not considered by the Referring Section, resulting in the inadmissibility of the questions «due to a failure to thoroughly examine the relevant regulatory framework».

6.3.– Regarding the alleged breach of Article 90 of the Statute, the Autonomous Province notes the inadmissibility of the question due to «erroneousness of the parameter», on the premise that no «alleged defect of jurisdiction of the challenged provision» can be derived from the aforementioned article. The hypothetical constitutional illegitimacy of the provision from a jurisdictional standpoint could, in fact, be affirmed solely with reference to Article 107, first paragraph, of the Statute, which confers upon the legislative decrees referred to therein a «general competence—albeit specialized—for [their relative] implementation […]».

On the merits, the question would be unfounded, by reason of the «connection between the exclusion of the extraordinary petition and the special system of administrative justice provided for by the autonomy statute for the territory of the Province of Bolzano». Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 «logically develops one of the consequences of such specialty […]», since, if the extraordinary petition were admissible, its alternative nature to the judicial appeal «would allow […] circumventing the guarantee provided by Articles 90, 91, 92, and 93 of the Statute». It cannot therefore be spoken of an incompetence of the source, since the «correlation between the provision of jurisdiction for the special body and the exclusion of the extraordinary petition» is clear, even «with reference to the principle of protecting linguistic minorities». Far from satisfying merely an «abstract interest "of the legal system"», the preclusion from availing oneself of the extraordinary petition protects the general interest «of the South Tyrolean community, and in particular of the German-speaking and Ladin-speaking linguistic groups, that disputes be resolved by a local judge in the special composition provided for by the Statute, to serve as the basis for any potential appellate proceedings, in which those communities are likewise involved […]».

6.4.– Furthermore, there would be no breach of the principle of equality, since the link between the preclusion and the protection of linguistic minorities is clear and evident. The observation that the «petitioner» would be prevented from taking advantage of the benefits of the extraordinary petition misses the mark, considering that such a reconstruction «incomprehensibly» transforms the prejudice of the individual petitioner into the «prejudice of the protected category, i.e., of the German-speaking and Ladin-speaking community». The circumstance that the administration and any opposing parties may avail themselves of the option to lodge an objection pursuant to Article 48 of Annex 1 (Code of Administrative Procedure) to Legislative Decree No. 2 of 2 July 2010 (Implementation of Article 44 of Law No. 69 of 18 June 2009, containing delegation to the government for the reorganization of the administrative process), thereby obtaining the transfer of the extraordinary petition «precisely to that judicial forum capable of ensuring the specific composition, in terms of the belonging of the panel members to linguistic groups […]», is likewise irrelevant. This argument would rather confirm the unfoundedness of the question, since «the necessary passage of the dispute through a first-instance trial [before a specially composed panel] constitutes the cornerstone of the guarantee that Articles 90, 91, and 93 ensure to the German-speaking and Ladin-speaking communities».

6.5.– The question raised with reference to Article 24 of the Constitution would also be unfounded, because, notwithstanding the enacted preclusion, the «possibility of taking legal action is always and in any event guaranteed to anyone who believes they have been harmed by administrative measures through recourse to the administrative judge» and because «it is now settled that the extraordinary petition to the President of the Republic is in no way of a judicial nature […]».

6.6.– Lastly, the alleged breaches of Articles 5 and 87, first paragraph, of the Constitution would be unfounded, since the challenged provision does not inflict any vulnerability upon the prerogatives of the Head of State and the unity of the Republic.

7.– Ahead of the public hearing, the Autonomous Province filed a brief focusing on the amendments to the rules governing the extraordinary petition introduced by Article 6, paragraph 4, of Decree-Law No. 19 of 19 February 2026, containing «Further urgent provisions for the implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) and regarding cohesion policies», converted, with amendments, into Law No. 50 of 20 April 2026, as a result of which the relevant decision is adopted «by decree of the President of the Council of State, in conformity with the opinion of the Council of State». For the rest, the brief insists on the inadmissibility and unfoundedness of the questions of constitutional legitimacy, including with reference to the one put forward consequentially, remarking that «the necessary counterweight to the raised question, which the referring court puts forward while simultaneously denying it, would in any case be identified in a noticeably creative manner and above all among a plurality of solutions, among which that of a parity composition between linguistic groups (or at least semi-parity, with two German-speaking members), by analogy with the panel provided at first instance, cannot be lacking».

The Law in Brief

8.– The Council of State, First Section, by the order indicated in the heading, questions the constitutional legitimacy of Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984—which provides that «[i]n matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano, the extraordinary petition to the President of the Republic is not permitted»—due to an alleged conflict with Article 90 of the Special Statute for the Trentino-Alto Adige Region and with Articles 3, first paragraph, 5, 24, first paragraph, and 87, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

8.1.‒ According to the referring court, the challenged provision exceeds the jurisdiction defined by Article 90 of the special statute, which is circumscribed to the organizational rules of the Regional Administrative Justice Tribunal.

8.2.– Secondly, the aforementioned preclusion would breach Article 3, first paragraph, of the Constitution, insofar as it prevents the use of a remedy available across the rest of the national territory, including in special statute regions, without this being justified by the need to protect linguistic minorities present in Trentino-Alto Adige.

8.3.– From other perspectives, it would conflict with the right of action enshrined in Article 24, first paragraph, of the Constitution, and with Articles 5 and 87, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

9.– It must be preliminarily specified that the referring court, called upon to rule on an extraordinary petition for the annulment of a building permit—an act whose challenge falls within the jurisdiction attributed to the Autonomous Section of Bolzano by Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 based on «criteria relating to the seat […] and the territorial effectiveness of the act»—has referred the aforementioned questions of constitutional legitimacy to this Court, holding that it could not adopt an interpretation of Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 that limits the preclusion of the aforementioned extraordinary remedy to disputes assigned to the same section according to «the criterion of the subject matter or of "non-derogability"», among which the dispute brought by the petition under examination would not fall. The referral order emphasizes, in fact, that the challenged provision refers indiscriminately to the «matters falling within the jurisdiction» of the Autonomous Section, leaving no interpretive leeway that could exclude its applicability to disputes attributed to ordinary jurisdiction, while avoiding incurring the feared profiles of constitutional illegitimacy.

The *thema decidendum* is therefore circumscribed to the profile—the only relevant one in the main proceedings—of the unavailability of the extraordinary petition for disputes falling within the ordinary jurisdictions of the Autonomous Section, such as the one—precisely—forming the object of the underlying proceedings.

10.– Still as a preliminary matter, it must be verified whether the supervening legislation referred to in Decree-Law No. 19 of 2026, as converted, requires the restitution of the case files for a fresh assessment of relevance and non-manifest unfoundedness.

In this regard, it should be specified that the amendments introduced by Article 6, paragraph 4, of the cited decree-law are limited to changing the name from «extraordinary petition to the President of the Republic» to «extraordinary petition» and to identifying the President of the Council of State, rather than the President of the Republic (upon proposal of the competent ministry), as the authority empowered to issue the decisive decree. The new legislation thus leaves the preclusion established in the challenged provision unaltered and it is therefore unnecessary to return the case files to the referring court.

11.– Having established these premises, it is possible to proceed to examine the objections of inadmissibility raised by the opposing party in the main proceedings and by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, admitted to intervene in these proceedings by Order No. 67 of 2026.

11.1.– Firstly, both defenses object to the inadmissibility of the questions due to their perplexed and contradictory nature, arguing that the referring court, while on the one hand denouncing the constitutional illegitimacy of the challenged provision, on the other hand is clearly aware of the vulnerability that a potential upholding ruling would inflict upon the protection of linguistic minorities. Precisely to avoid such vulnerability, the referral order puts forward the aforementioned extensive or analogous interpretation of the special statute and its implementing rules, or a consequential declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 14, fifth and sixth paragraphs, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984, with the intent of ensuring the presence of a councillor belonging to the linguistic minority group on the panels of the Council of State seized of extraordinary petitions.

This objection must be dismissed, as the argumentative path of the referring court unfolds coherently on the premise that the preclusion from availing oneself of the extraordinary petition is not justified by the protection of linguistic minorities. Within the framework of the referral order, remedies for the specified vulnerability are indeed put forward solely for the hypothesis (which the court itself does not share) in which a correlation between the preclusion and the aforementioned protection is instead recognized.

11.2.– For another and connected reason, the defense of the opposing party objects that the vulnerability to the protection of linguistic minorities deriving from a potential upholding of the questions could not be bridged—neither through interpretation, nor through a consequential declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 14, paragraphs 5 and 6, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984—by this Court, but rather, if at all, through legislative intervention. An analogous position is sustained in the defenses of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano.

Given its direct connection with the assessment on the merits of the individual questions, this objection will be considered jointly with the latter.

11.3.– Finally, the same Autonomous Province objects to the inadmissibility of the questions for «failure to thoroughly examine the relevant regulatory framework», arguing that the Council of State did not dwell on the «issues» concerning the additional powers attributed to the Autonomous Section of Bolzano.

This objection is likewise unfounded in light of what has already been stated with regard to the delimitation of the *thema decidendum*. The referring court, in fact, shows a clear awareness of the difference between the various types of jurisdictional powers of the aforementioned section and, with reference to such differences, takes care to assess the possibility (subsequently ruled out) of an interpretation of the challenged preclusion that would deem it inoperative for ordinary jurisdictions.

12.– For a thorough examination on the merits of the questions raised, it is necessary to illustrate the condition of specialty characterizing the Autonomous Province of Bolzano and, specifically, its administrative justice system.

12.1.– As is known, the condition of autonomy of the Autonomous Region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol has its roots in the De Gasperi-Gruber Agreement of 5 September 1946, which affirms the equality of rights of the German-speaking inhabitants of the Province of Bolzano and the neighboring bilingual municipalities of the Province of Trento with respect to Italian-speaking inhabitants, in a broader perspective not limited strictly to linguistic aspects. In accordance with the aforementioned agreement, Constitutional Law No. 5 of 26 February 1948 (Special Statute for Trentino-Alto Adige) adopted the special statute for Trentino-Alto Adige, Article 2 of which establishes that «equality of rights is recognized for citizens in the region, regardless of the linguistic group to which they belong, and their respective ethnic and cultural characteristics are safeguarded». The statute has been subject to additions and amendments, the most substantial of which were introduced by Constitutional Law No. 1 of 10 November 1971 (Modifications and additions to the special statute for Trentino-Alto Adige), and its consolidated text, consisting of the 1948 provisions remaining in force and the intervening amendments and additions, was approved in 1972 by the aforementioned Presidential Decree No. 670.

Among the various measures aimed at protecting the aforementioned autonomy, the autonomy statute outlines a special system for the exercise of administrative justice, especially with reference to the Autonomous Province of Bolzano. In this regard, Article 90 of the consolidated text provides that «[i]n Trentino-Alto Adige a regional administrative justice tribunal shall be established with an autonomous section for the province of Bolzano, in accordance with the regulations to be established in this regard»; Article 91 establishes that «[t]he members of the section for the province of Bolzano referred to in Article 90 of this statute must belong in equal numbers to the two major linguistic groups»; and Article 93 establishes that «[t]he sections of the Council of State seized of appellate judgments against decisions of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano […] shall include a councillor belonging to the German-speaking group or the Ladin-speaking group of the province of Bolzano».

12.2.– In implementation of the cited Article 90 of the autonomy statute, Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 subsequently defined the organization of the Regional Administrative Tribunal, establishing the Section of Trento and the Autonomous Section of Bolzano.

So far as relevant for the purposes of these proceedings, Article 2, second paragraph, of the cited decree provides that to the latter section «eight magistrates with the rank of regional administrative tribunal councillor shall be assigned, four of whom belong to the Italian linguistic group and four of whom belong to the German linguistic group».

Article 3, second paragraph, then identifies the jurisdictions of that same section, establishing that it shall rule on appeals against acts and measures issued: «1) by organs of the public administration, having their seat in the province of Bolzano, excluding acts and measures whose effectiveness is limited to the territory of the province of Trento; 2) by organs of the public administration, not having their seat in the province of Bolzano, whose effectiveness is limited to the territory of the latter province», while Article 7, in its first paragraph, specifies that «[t]he Autonomous Section of Bolzano shall rule with the intervention of four members, belonging half to each of the Italian and German linguistic groups».

Article 14 further adds that, for the purposes of the aforementioned Article 93 of the statute, «two State councillors belonging to the German-speaking group of the province of Bolzano […] shall be appointed» (first paragraph); «[t]he assignment of the aforesaid councillors to the consultative and judicial sections of the Council of State shall be arranged, at the beginning of each year, by the decree provided for by Article 12, first paragraph, of Consolidated Text No. 1054 of 26 June 1924» (fourth paragraph); «[o]ne of the State councillors belonging to the German-speaking group of the province of Bolzano, appointed pursuant to [the same] Article 93 […], must be part of the panel of the section referred to in Article 17, paragraph 28, of Law No. 127 of 15 May 1997, when the latter is seized of matters concerning the province of Bolzano […]» (fifth paragraph); «[a]ppeals against decisions of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano shall be assigned for processing to the sections of the Council of State to which the aforementioned councillors are assigned», with the specification that «at least one of them must be part of the adjudicating panel hearing the aforesaid appeals» (sixth paragraph).

12.3.– Within the outlined framework, the third paragraph of the cited Article 7, which is the specific object of these proceedings, establishes that «[i]n matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano, the extraordinary petition to the President of the Republic is not permitted».

It is worth recalling that, up to the present day, administrative case-law has consistently deemed manifestly unfounded questions of constitutional legitimacy analogous to the one currently under examination, rooting such unfoundedness in the «particular nature and composition of the autonomous section of the Regional Administrative Justice Tribunal, connected to the particular demographic, social, and cultural situation of the Italian and German linguistic groups coexisting in Alto Adige». It has thus been affirmed that «the preclusion established by Article 7 under examination is therefore to be framed among the implementing measures of the principle of protection of linguistic minorities enshrined in Article 6 of the Constitution: measures representing a balancing between the rights of the individual and the superior general interests inspired by said constitutional precept, such that the restriction or conditioning that the citizen of the province of Bolzano may undergo finds justification in relation to the need for equality among the main linguistic groups to protect the local minority […]» (Regional Administrative Justice Tribunal, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano, Judgment No. 127 of 27 May 1994; to the same effect, Council of State, Sixth Section, Judgment No. 2474 of 24 April 2018).

13.– Having stated this, the question concerning the breach of Article 90 of the special statute is unfounded.

13.1.– In this regard, it must be preliminarily specified that, contrary to what was objected by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, the invocation of Article 90 in support of the alleged breach appears correct. The challenged provision is, in fact, inserted in the implementing decree concerning the establishment of the Regional Administrative Justice Tribunal of Trentino-Alto Adige. It is therefore unquestionable that the parameter for verifying compliance with statutory limits is precisely Article 90, insofar as it defers the organization of such Tribunal to future regulations. Conversely, Article 107 of the special statute, invoked by the same Autonomous Province, solely contains procedural rules for statutory implementation, without any reference to the identification of the matters forming the object thereof. Therefore, while such a provision may be employed to verify potential procedural breaches, it cannot be used to ascertain the exceeding of jurisdictional limits, *sub specie materiae*, enshrined in the autonomy statute.

13.2.– As to the merits of the question, reference must be made to this Court's doctrine according to which «[t]he implementing provisions of regional statutes with special autonomy are intended to contain, inter alia, not only provisions of proper execution or integrative *secundum legem*, it not being excluded that they may have a *praeter legem* content in the sense of integrating the statutory rules, even adding to them something that the latter did not contain, subject to the "limit of correspondence to the rules and purpose of implementing the Statute, within the context of the principle of regional autonomy" […]» (Judgment No. 353 of 2001; more recently, to the same effect, Judgment No. 9 of 2024).

As also emphasized by the aforementioned administrative case-law (supra, point 12.3), the challenged preclusion can be framed among the implementing measures of the principle of protection of linguistic minorities, since it guarantees that disputes concerning the territory of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano are adjudicated by a judge with a parity composition, in view of the particular demographic, social, and cultural situation of the Italian and German linguistic groups coexisting in Alto Adige.

Therefore, while it is true that the challenged provision does not strictly pertain to the organizational setup of the Regional Administrative Justice Tribunal, it cannot be deemed to conflict with the special statute, as it is in any event traceable to the purposes pursued by the latter, among which is that of recognizing equality of «rights for citizens, regardless of the linguistic group to which they belong» and safeguarding «their respective ethnic and cultural characteristics» (Art. 2 of the Special Statute for the Trentino-Alto Adige Region).

13.3.– As a result of the assessment that the question at issue is unfounded, the objection referred to in point 11.2 is rendered irrelevant with respect to it.

14.– The censures relating to Articles 5 and 87, first paragraph, of the Constitution are likewise unfounded.

The function relating to the decision on the extraordinary petition is not included among the powers attributed by the Constitution to the President of the Republic and, in any event, falls outside the institutional dimension in which the role of the Head of State as representative of national unity must be placed. This is sufficient to rule out that the enacted preclusion can compromise national unity and the tasks assigned by the Constitution to the President of the Republic.

14.1.– In this case as well, the unfoundedness of the questions renders the objection referred to in point 11.2 irrelevant with respect to them.

15.– The questions relating to Articles 3, first paragraph, and 24, first paragraph, of the Constitution may be examined jointly, as the alleged breach of the principles of equality and reasonableness specifically qualifies in relation to a preclusion impacting upon the effectiveness of judicial protection of subjective legal situations.

15.1.– A thorough framing of these questions requires a brief recall of the essential features of the rules governing the extraordinary petition and the most recent case-law developments regarding the nature of the institution.

15.2.– As is known, the extraordinary petition is governed by Presidential Decree No. 1199 of 24 November 1971 (Simplification of proceedings in matters of administrative petitions) and, in part, by the Code of Administrative Procedure. Specifically, Article 8 of the cited Presidential Decree No. 1199 of 1971 provides that «[a]gainst final administrative acts, an extraordinary petition is permitted [originally to the President of the Republic and, currently, to the President of the Council of State: see supra, point 10] on grounds of legitimacy by anyone having an interest therein» (first paragraph) and that «[w]hen the act has been challenged by means of a judicial appeal, the extraordinary petition by the same interested party shall not be permitted» (second paragraph). Re-enacting the provisions of Royal Decree No. 1054 of 26 June 1924 (Approval of the consolidated text of laws on the Council of State), the principal characteristic of the institution is thus outlined: that of being a remedy alternative to the judicial appeal, available on grounds of legitimacy against final administrative acts. For its part, Article 7, paragraph 8, of the Code of Administrative Procedure provides that «[t]he extraordinary petition is permitted solely for disputes assigned to administrative jurisdiction».

The procedural rules, contained in Articles 9–14 of the cited Presidential Decree No. 1199 of 1971, underwent significant amendments by virtue of the aforementioned Law No. 69 of 2009. The essential aspects of these rules, which remained substantially unchanged even after the aforementioned 2026 reform, can be summarized as follows: i) the time limit for bringing the petition is one hundred and twenty days from the date of notification or communication of the challenged act or from when the interested party has full knowledge thereof (Art. 9, first paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 1199 of 1971); ii) the parties against whom the extraordinary petition has been brought may object, requesting—by an act notified to the petitioner and to the organ that issued the challenged act within sixty days of notification of the petition—that the matter be decided in judicial proceedings; in which case the petitioner, if interested in pursuing the action, must "transfer" it before the competent judge by filing the «act of appearance in proceedings» in the relevant secretariat within sixty days of receiving the aforementioned act of objection and giving notice thereof to the other parties (Art. 10, first paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 1199 of 1971; Art. 48 of the Code of Administrative Procedure); iii) if this does not occur, the petition, investigated by the competent ministry, is transmitted, together with the relevant files and documents, to the Council of State for the adoption, by the section or special commission, of the preliminary opinion required for the relative decision (Arts. 11–13 of Presidential Decree No. 1199 of 1971); iv) the decision on the petition, to be rendered in a sense «in conformity» with such opinion, is adopted by decree of the President of the Republic upon proposal of the competent ministry (Art. 14, first paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 1199 of 1971, which in its current wording provides instead that the aforesaid decision be adopted by decree of the President of the Council of State, likewise «in conformity» with the aforementioned opinion). The innovations introduced by Law No. 69 of 2009 concern in particular, alongside the binding nature of the aforementioned opinion (resulting from the new text of the cited Article 14), the express recognition of the power of the Council of State to raise questions of constitutional legitimacy while rendering its opinion (Art. 13 of Presidential Decree No. 1199 of 1971).

15.3.– Prior to the cited Law No. 69 of 2009, the non-binding nature of the opinion had led constitutional case-law to configure the extraordinary petition as a remedy of an administrative nature (Judgments No. 282 of 2005 and No. 254 of 2004). Following those amendments, with Judgment No. 73 of 2014, this Court instead affirmed that «the institution has lost its purely administrative connotation and has assumed the quality of an administrative adjudicatory remedy, with structural and functional characteristics partially assimilable to those typical of the administrative trial» (point 3.1 of the Law in Brief), specifying that «[t]he acquired binding nature of the opinion of the Council of State, which thus takes on the character of a decision, has consequently modified the ancient administrative petition, transforming it into an adjudicatory remedy that is substantially assimilable to a "judgment", at least for the purposes of applying Article 1 of Constitutional Law No. 1 of 1948 and Article 23 of Law No. 87 of 1953» (point 2 of the Law in Brief; similarly, also Judgment No. 24 of 2018).

Invoking the substantially judicial nature of the extraordinary petition, the Court of Cassation recognized the availability of compliance proceedings (*giudizio di ottemperanza*) against its decisions (Court of Cassation, Joint Civil Sections, Judgment No. 2065 of 28 January 2011) and their challengeability for reasons pertaining to jurisdiction pursuant to Article 111, eighth paragraph, of the Constitution (Court of Cassation, Joint Civil Sections, Judgment No. 23464 of 19 December 2012). For its part, the Plenary Assembly of the Council of State noted that, in the face of the aforementioned binding opinion, «the final measure is merely declaratory of a judgment formulated by a judicial organ in a complete and definitive manner», so that the final act of the procedure «is an exercise of jurisdiction in the content expressed by the opinion of the Council of State which, in a position of impartiality and independence and in compliance with the rules of adversarial proceedings, carries out a verification of the legitimacy of the challenged act» (Council of State, Plenary Assembly, Judgment No. 9 of 6 May 2013 and Order No. 7 of 14 July 2015).

More recently, as recalled (supra, point 4.2), this Court returned to address the institution in question with reference to the special rules contained in Article 9 of Legislative Decree No. 373 of 2003 concerning the extraordinary petition to the President of the Sicilian Region. In declaring the constitutional illegitimacy of the aforementioned rules to the extent that, in contrast with national rules, they did (not) provide for the binding nature of the opinion of the Council of Administrative Justice for the Sicilian Region, it specified that, «while not entailing a jurisdictionalization of the institution, which must in any event be recognized as having an "adjudicatory" nature differing from the judicial one (Judgments No. 24 of 2018 and No. 73 of 2014)», the 2009 amendments led to «the expansion of guarantees and protection tools available to those who avail themselves of such a remedy precisely on the basis of the changed binding nature of the opinion of the consultative body» and that the «contraction of the set of remedies and guarantees recognized to the petitioner in proceedings before the President of the Sicilian Region, compared to one who avails himself of the equivalent national remedy, conflicts with Article 3 of the Constitution and, without suitable justification, negatively reflects upon the protection of rights and legitimate interests referred to in Article 24 of the Constitution» (Judgment No. 63 of 2023, points 5 and 6.1 of the Law in Brief).

In 2024, the Plenary Assembly of the Council of State intervened in turn once again *in subiecta materia*, noting that «[t]he increase in the guarantees of the extraordinary petition (the binding opinion, the possibility of raising questions of constitutional legitimacy, the availability of compliance proceedings), however, does not entail any need for "assimilation" to jurisdiction» and that «[t]he extraordinary petition is an adjudicatory remedy alternative to the judicial one, with which it shares only certain structural and functional profiles» (Council of State, Plenary Assembly, Judgment No. 11 of 7 May 2024).

The European Court of Human Rights has likewise affirmed that, following the amendments introduced by Law No. 69 of 2009 and the Code of Administrative Procedure, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights also applies to the extraordinary petition (ECtHR, First Section, decision of 8 September 2020, Mediani v. Italy).

15.4.– In light of the described legislative and case-law evolution, it thus appears evident how the radical preclusion of the use of the aforementioned instrument established by the challenged Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984 creates tension with the principle of equality evaluated in relation to the protection of legal situations entrusted to administrative jurisdiction, to the extent that it prevents the holders thereof from availing themselves of a remedy specifically designed for their protection, which the legal system has progressively enhanced to guarantee the parties. At the same time, however, it is equally clear that the enacted preclusion, on the one hand, does not undermine the minimum threshold of the right of defense before an independent and impartial judge and, on the other hand, is instrumental to the protection of linguistic minorities in the sense reported above.

A potential ruling upholding the questions at issue, therefore, while on the one hand eliminating the critical issues referring to the prohibition to use, for disputes concerning the ordinary jurisdictions of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano, an instrument for protecting legal situations available across the entire national territory (including special autonomy regions), on the other hand would generate tension with respect to the protection of linguistic minorities, since there would no longer be any certainty that the aforesaid disputes are adjudicated at first instance by a judicial body with a parity composition, unless such protection is adequately guaranteed through the introduction of specific "corrective" modalities in the procedure for deciding the extraordinary petition.

To mitigate this critical issue, the possibility recognized to the parties to object to the extraordinary petition in order to obtain its transfer to judicial proceedings is not deemed sufficient. From this perspective, the protection of linguistic minorities would in fact be conditioned upon an individual choice of the parties, with the consequence that, should the latter fail to object, the dispute would be removed from the local judge. The protection of linguistic minorities would thus be relativized as a function of subjective choices, rather than being prescribed on a general basis to prevent—as the challenged provision currently establishes—the disputes entrusted to the Autonomous Section of Bolzano from being adjudicated by a different authority. It goes without saying that the same considerations apply to the hypothesis in which it is the petitioner who chooses the path of the extraordinary petition, thereby independently deciding to remove the dispute from the aforesaid section.

The referring court itself shows awareness of the described impasse, as it—while excluding a specific correlation between the enacted preclusion and the protection of linguistic minorities—nevertheless takes care to put forward solutions aimed at ensuring, by means of extensive or analogous interpretation, or through a consequential declaration of unconstitutionality of the implementing provisions, the presence on the panel seized of the extraordinary petition of a State councillor belonging to the linguistic minority group.

The preceding considerations highlight the need for a balancing different from the one currently crystallized in the challenged provision, which is strongly oriented toward the protection of linguistic minorities at the expense of the principles of equality and reasonableness related to the protection of legal situations. A new balancing should therefore seek different solutions that adapt the extraordinary petition to the autonomic context of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, introducing the necessary guarantees for the protection of linguistic minorities into the relevant rules. However, there is a wide spectrum of options for resolving the identified critical issues, even other than those identified by the referring court. Suffice it to consider that, alongside the presence on the panels seized of extraordinary petitions of a councillor belonging to the linguistic minority groups, one could, for example, hypothesize a parity composition for those same panels analogous to that of the Autonomous Section of Bolzano, or alternatively, an *ad hoc* extraordinary petition could be provided for disputes entrusted to the latter, modeled on the Sicilian Region. Nevertheless, as also observed by the defenses of the parties (supra, point 11.2), the choice of the most appropriate instrument falls outside the perimeter of constitutional legitimacy proceedings and is entrusted, as matters stand, to the legislature, as it involves remodeling the rules of the extraordinary petition to the specificity of a different context.

It follows that the questions lastly addressed are inadmissible, for the reasons specified, since the identified tensions between the constitutional principles involved cannot be resolved via a constitutional ruling and without exercising "systemic" choices belonging to the competence of the legislature (Judgments No. 125 of 2025, No. 143 of 2022, No. 103 of 2021, and No. 250 of 2018).

on those grounds

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1) declares inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 6 April 1984 (Implementing provisions of the special statute for the Trentino-Alto Adige region concerning the establishment of the Regional Administrative Court of Trento and the Autonomous Section of Bolzano), raised, with reference to Articles 3, first paragraph, and 24, first paragraph, of the Constitution, by the Council of State, First Section, by means of the opinion indicated in the heading;

2) declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 7, third paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 426 of 1984, raised, with reference to Article 90 of Presidential Decree No. 670 of 31 August 1972 (Approval of the consolidated text of constitutional laws concerning the special statute for Trentino-Alto Adige) and Articles 5 and 87, first paragraph, of the Constitution, by the Council of State, First Section, by means of the opinion indicated in the heading.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 10 June 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Rapporteur

Valeria EMMA, Chancellor

Filed in the Chancery on 24 July 2026

The anonymized version conforms, in its text, to the original