Sentenza n. 163 del 2026

Judgment no. 163 of 2026 - AI translated

JUDGMENT NO. 163

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 constitutionality of Articles 5(1)(b), 11(1)(b), (c), and (d), and 14(1)(g) and (k) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of September 29, 2025, entitled "11th Legislative Term – 27th provision recognizing off-budget debts pursuant to Article 73(1)(e) of Legislative Decree No. 118 of June 23, 2011, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 126 of August 10, 2014, and various provisions,” brought by the President of the Council of Ministers by means of an appeal notified on December 1, 2025, filed with the registry on the following December 10, registered under No. 46 of the 2025 appeal registry, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, 1st Special Series, No. 1 of the year 2026.

Having heard Judge Rapporteur Marco D’Alberti at the public hearing of July 8, 2026;

Having heard State Counsel Giancarlo Caselli on behalf of the President of the Council of Ministers;

Having deliberated in the chambers on July 8, 2026.

Ritenuto in fatto [Proceedings in Fact]

1.– By means of an appeal notified on December 1, 2025, filed on the following December 10, and registered under No. 46 of the 2025 appeal registry, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, brought proceedings on the constitutionality of Articles 5(1)(b), 11(1)(b), (c), and (d), and 14(1)(g) and (k) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of September 29, 2025, entitled "11th Legislative Term – 27th provision recognizing off-budget debts pursuant to Article 73(1)(e) of Legislative Decree No. 118 of June 23, 2011, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 126 of August 10, 2014, and various provisions.”

1.1.– Article 5(1)(b) of the aforementioned regional law is challenged with reference to Article 117(2)(e) of the Constitution, for infringement of the exclusive legislative competence of the State regarding the protection of competition.

The challenged provision, entitled "Amendments to Regional Law No. 49/2017,” replaced Article 10-ter of Apulia Region Law No. 49 of December 1, 2017 (Regulation of the communication of prices and services of tourist accommodation facilities, as well as public-use tourist accommodation activities managed under concession and the collection of data on tourist movement for statistical purposes), which, in its new wording, provides:

"1. For the purpose of understanding the regional tourism offering, the Regional Database of Accommodation Facilities and Tourist Rentals is established, which assigns the Regional Identification Code (CIR) referred to in Article 13-ter of Decree-Law No. 145 of October 18, 2023, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No. 191 of December 15, 2023 (Conversion into law, with amendments, of Decree-Law No. 145 of October 18, 2023 (Urgent economic and tax measures in favor of territorial entities, for the protection of labor and for indifferrable needs)).

2. The CIR is assigned to the tourism operator following registration via a computerized procedure on a dedicated telematic platform and is a prerequisite for obtaining the National Identification Code (CIN) referred to in Article 13-ter of Decree-Law No. 145/2023.

3. The Regional Database of Accommodation Facilities and Tourist Rentals operates in a regime of interoperability with the National Database of Accommodation Facilities and Real Estate Units Intended for Short-Term Rentals or Tourist Purposes (BDSR), in accordance with the implementing provisions defined by Decree No. 16726 of the Minister of Tourism of June 6, 2024.

4. The implementing and management procedures for the Regional Database of Accommodation Facilities and Tourist Rentals shall be defined by a measure of the regional body competent in tourism matters.”

The appellant argued that the CIN was introduced by Article 13-ter of Decree-Law No. 145 of October 18, 2023 (Urgent economic and tax measures in favor of territorial entities, for the protection of labor and for indifferrable needs), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 191 of December 15, 2023, in the exercise of the exclusive state legislative competences referred to in Article 117(2)(e) and (r) of the Constitution. Such regulation falls within the matters of the protection of competition and the informational, statistical, and IT coordination of public administration data, as it is aimed at guaranteeing uniform conditions of access and exercise of accommodation activities throughout the national territory.

The establishment of the CIN also pursues purposes of public order, security, and the combating of irregular forms of hospitality, areas that require homogeneous regulation at the state level.

As an effect of the new provision, the assignment of the national identification code in the Apulia Region is subordinated to the prior acquisition of the Regional Identification Code (CIR), to be obtained via a computerized procedure on a dedicated regional platform.

According to the appellant, the challenged provision, by introducing a condition—such as the prior acquisition of the CIR—to access the assignment of the CIN, violates the exclusive legislative competences of the State, undermining the uniformity of the national identification rules for operators in the accommodation sector and complicating the procedure for potential operators in the sector.

Indeed, to the extent that it introduces an additional burden for sector operators, expressly described as a "prerequisite” for the acquisition of the CIN, the provision would effectively limit the ability of potential incoming subjects to compete by solely complying with the interposed state rule (the aforementioned Article 13-ter of Decree-Law No. 145 of 2023, as converted), which provides for the sole acquisition of the CIN as the qualifying title.

2.– The second ground of appeal alleges the unconstitutionality of Article 11(1)(b) and (c) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, for violation of Article 117(3) of the Constitution, in relation to Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of June 6, 2001, entitled "Consolidated text of legislative and regulatory provisions concerning building matters (Text A),” serving as an interposed state norm, and Article 117(2)(m) of the Constitution, for infringement of the exclusive legislative competence ofлля the State regarding the determination of the essential levels of performance concerning civil and social rights that must be guaranteed throughout the national territory.

The challenged provision amends Article 4 of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of December 1, 2017 (Norms concerning building qualification titles, controls on building activities, and changes of use of real estate), making the following amendments: "b) in paragraph 3, the words: ‘Changes of use’ are replaced by the following: ‘Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1-quinquies of Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001, changes of use’; c) in paragraph 4, the words ‘Changes of use’ are replaced by the following: ‘Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 1-bis, 1-ter, and 1-quater of Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001, changes of use.’”

2.1.– Article 4 of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of 2017, as worded following the amendments introduced by the challenged provision, provides in paragraph 3: "[w]ithout prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1-quinquies of Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001, relevant changes of use referred to in paragraph 1, with or without works, shall be carried out by means of a building permit or by means of a certified report of commencement of activity [SCIA] as an alternative to the building permit, depending on the type of building intervention to which the change of use is connected. Interventions providing for a different use among those attributable to the same functional category shall be carried out by means of a certified report of commencement of activity.”

In the appellant's view, this provision, to the extent that it establishes that relevant changes of use, with or without works, must always be carried out by means of a building permit or an alternative certified report of commencement of activity (SCIA), conflicts with the facilitation measures introduced by Decree-Law No. 69 of May 29, 2024 (Urgent provisions regarding building and urban planning simplification), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 105 of July 24, 2024, which, by amending Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001 via Article 1(1)(c), intervened on provisions that constitute fundamental principles of the matter of "territorial governance” and constitute an essential level of performance in the relevant sector.

Indeed, Article 23-ter(1-quinquies) of the Consolidated Building Act governs the title required in specific hypotheses of changes of use referred to in the preceding paragraphs 1-bis and 1-ter. The rule provides that if the change of use of a real estate unit does not involve the execution of building works, or if the works to be executed fall within free building activity or are subject to the submission of a sworn report of commencement of works (CILA), the certified report of commencement of activity must be submitted to obtain authorization for the change; in remaining cases, the title required is that necessary for the execution of the works connected to the change of use, without prejudice to any more favorable regulations provided by regional laws.

As an effect of the clause preserving the provisions of paragraph 1-quinquies of the aforementioned Article 23-ter, Article 4(3) of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of 2017, as reformulated, would entail, according to the appellant, that the building qualification regulations outlined therein apply "exclusively to hypotheses of changes of use other than the ‘simplified’ ones attributable to the cases referred to in Article 23-ter, paragraphs 1-bis and 1-ter, of the Consolidated Building Act.”

2.2.– The same Article 11(1) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, at letter c), as seen, also amends Article 4(4) of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of 2017.

As a result of these amendments, the aforementioned paragraph 4 provides: "4. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 1-bis, 1-ter, and 1-quater of Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001, changes of use, including those not involving a transition to a different functional category, shall be permitted in compliance with the conditions and uses provided for by municipal urban planning instruments.”

In the appellant's view, the current wording incurs the same violation already challenged with reference to the preceding paragraph, since the regulation established by the aforementioned Article 4(4) would be applicable to hypotheses of changes of use other than the "simplified” ones attributable to the cases referred to in Article 23-ter(1-bis), (1-ter), and (1-quater) of the Consolidated Building Act.

3.– The third ground of appeal alleges the unconstitutionality of Article 11(1)(d) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, with reference to Article 117(3) of the Constitution, for infringement of the fundamental principles laid down by the State in the matter of territorial governance, in relation to Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001, serving as an interposed state norm, and Article 117(2)(m) of the Constitution, for infringement of the exclusive legislative competence of the State regarding the determination of the essential levels of performance concerning civil and social rights that must be guaranteed throughout the national territory.

The challenged provision introduced new paragraph 5-bis into Article 4 of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of 2017.

The combined provisions of paragraphs 5 and 5-bis of Article 4 of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of 2017, as amended by the challenged provision, are as follows: "5. Municipal urban planning instruments shall establish limitations on changes of use whenever requirements for the protection of health, safety, the environment, the landscape, historical, artistic, and cultural heritage, urban decorum, as well as the safeguarding and enhancement of the identifying and traditional characteristics of the social and architectural context, exist.

5-bis. Without prejudice to the limitations referred to in paragraph 5, the provisions of paragraphs 1-bis, 1-ter, and 1-quater of Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001, or of the regional rules implementing them, shall prevail over conflicting provisions of general urban planning instruments that have already been approved and are effective as of the date of entry into force of Decree-Law No. 69 of May 29, 2024 (Urgent provisions regarding building and urban planning simplification) and that conflict with said rules.”

Article 23-ter of the Consolidated Building Act, in paragraphs 1-bis, 1-ter, and 1-quater, with a view to facilitating the change of use of individual real estate units within the same functional category and among the residential, tourist-accommodation, productive-managerial, and commercial functional categories, has recognized the possibility for municipal urban planning instruments to establish exclusively "conditions,” understood as quota-setting measures for requests for changes of use aimed at preserving the layout and harmonious development of the territory, which in any case must not amount to limitations or restrictions.

In the appellant’s opinion, the reference made by the challenged provision (paragraph 5-bis) to paragraph 5 of the same Article 4 of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of 2017, which mentions the "limitations” on changes of use provided for by urban planning schemes, fails to clarify the fact that state simplification provisions (specifically paragraphs 1-bis, 1-ter, and 1-quater of Article 23-ter of the Consolidated Building Act) prevail, in any case, over conflicting provisions of urban planning instruments approved prior to the entry into force of Decree-Law No. 69 of 2024, as converted.

The establishment of "limitations” by local authorities would deprive the scope of Article 23-ter of the Consolidated Building Act of its content, as that article—with regard to the "simplified” hypotheses of changes of use identified therein—intends to set common standards across the entire national territory in balancing property rights and the public interests connected with territorial governance.

4.– The fourth ground of appeal also challenges Article 14(1)(g) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, with reference to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, for infringement of the exclusive legislative competence of the State in the matter of environmental and ecosystem protection, in relation to Article 96(1) of Legislative Decree No. 152 of April 3, 2006 (Environmental regulations) and Article 12 of Legislative Decree No. 79 of March 16, 1999 (Implementation of Directive 96/92/EC laying down common rules for the internal market in electricity), serving as interposed state norms, as well as with reference to Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution, under the profiles of the principles of reasonableness and the sound performance of public administration.

The challenged provision, entitled "Amendments and additions to Regional Law No. 7/2025,” provides as follows: "1. The following amendments and additions are made to Regional Law No. 7 of May 30, 2025 (Regional regulation of the use of surface and groundwater and various provisions): [...] g) in paragraph 10 of Article 11, after the words: ‘relating to small diversions’, the following are added: ‘for uses other than hydroelectric use’ and, after the words: ‘relating to large diversions’, the following are added: ‘for uses other than hydroelectric use.’”

Following this intervention, Article 11(10) of Apulia Region Law No. 7 of 2025 establishes: "[f]or concession applications relating to small diversions for uses other than hydroelectric use, the District Basin Authority of the Southern Apennines shall issue a binding opinion regarding the compatibility of the use with the provisions of the Water Protection Plan and other plans within its competence, and for the purpose of monitoring the balance of the water or hydrological budget. Said binding opinion shall be communicated by the Authority to the competent body within the peremptory term of forty days from the date of acquisition of the concession application transmitted in accordance with the procedures provided for in paragraph 2. For concession applications relating to large diversions for uses other than hydroelectric use, the deadline for communicating the aforementioned opinion is extended to ninety days from the date of acquisition of the concession application.”

The provision, by requiring the binding opinion of the Basin Authority only in relation to concession applications for uses other than hydroelectric use, would conflict with Article 96(1) of Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006, which establishes that the binding opinion of the Basin Authority must be acquired for all public water diversions, without distinctions between large and small diversions and without exceptions for hydroelectric uses.

The elimination of the binding opinion of the Basin Authority for hydroelectric diversion concessions would therefore violate a uniform protection standard established by the state legislature in the exercise of its exclusive legislative competence in environmental and hydrogeological protection.

The challenged provision would also be constitutionally illegitimate for violation of Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution, since the difference in treatment between hydroelectric diversions and other water uses would be unreasonable and would conflict with the principles of impartiality and sound performance of public administration.

5.– Finally, Article 14(1)(k) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025 has been challenged with reference to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, in relation to Article 21 of Royal Decree No. 1775 of December 11, 1933 (Approval of the consolidated text of legal provisions on waters and electrical installations), serving as an interposed state norm, as well as Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution, under the profiles of the principle of reasonableness and the sound performance of public administration.

The challenged provision amended Article 21(1) of Apulia Region Law No. 7 of 2025 by deleting the word "maximum” and thereby establishing a fixed duration of fifteen years for large-scale industrial diversion concessions, eliminating any discretionary evaluation by the granting authority regarding the measurement of the duration of such concessions.

The current text of Article 21(1) of Apulia Region Law No. 7 of 2025 establishes: "[t]he concession shall have a duration of fifteen years, barring a different motivated request by the applicant, and may be modified, suspended, or revoked pursuant to Articles 16, 17, and 20.”

The amendment introduced, by rigidly fixing the duration of large diversion concessions at fifteen years and eliminating any discretionary evaluation by the granting administration regarding the duration of the relationship, would alter the balance between economic exploitation requirements and environmental protection.

It would therefore conflict with the interposed state norm referred to in Article 21 of Royal Decree No. 1775 of 1933, whose second paragraph provides for a maximum and not a fixed term when it prescribes that: "[c]oncessions for large diversions for industrial use shall be stipulated for a duration not exceeding fifteen years and may be made conditional upon the implementation of water savings through water recycling or reuse, within the quantitative and temporal terms to be established upon the granting of the concession, taking into account the best technologies applicable to the specific case.”

Furthermore, the establishment of an unalterable minimum duration would constitute a derogation in peius from the levels of environmental protection guaranteed by state legislation, also conflicting with the principles of reasonableness and sound performance of public administration (Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution).

The Apulia Region did not enter an appearance in the proceedings and did not conduct any defensive activity.

Considerato in diritto [Considerations in Law]

6.– By the aforementioned appeal (Reg. App. No. 46 of 2025), the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, brought proceedings on the constitutionality of Articles 5(1)(b), 11(1)(b), (c), and (d), and 14(1)(g) and (k) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, alleging the violation of multiple constitutional and interposed parameters.

6.1.– Article 5(1)(b) of the aforementioned regional law is challenged with reference to Article 117(2)(e) of the Constitution, for infringement of the exclusive legislative competence of the State in the matter of the protection of competition.

The challenged provision replaced Article 10-ter of Apulia Region Law No. 49 of 2017, which governs the Regional Database of Accommodation Facilities and Tourist Rentals and the CIR of such facilities.

The aforementioned Article 10-ter, in its current text, establishes that the CIR is assigned to the tourism operator following registration via a computerized procedure and is a prerequisite for obtaining the CIN, governed by Article 13-ter of Decree-Law No. 145 of 2023, as converted.

According to the appellant, the challenged provision, by introducing a condition—such as the prior acquisition of the CIR—to access the assignment of the CIN, would violate the exclusive legislative competences of the State in the matter of the "protection of competition,” prejudicing the uniformity of the national identification rules for operators in the accommodation sector and complicating the procedure for potential new operators in the sector.

6.2.– The question is well-founded.

Article 13-ter of Decree-Law No. 145 of 2023, as converted, provides as follows: "[i]n order to ensure the protection of competition and market transparency, the informational, statistical, and IT coordination of state, regional, and local administration data, and the security of the territory, and to combat irregular forms of hospitality, the Ministry of Tourism, without prejudice to paragraph 3, shall assign, via a dedicated automated procedure, a National Identification Code (CIN) to residential real estate units intended for tourist rental contracts, residential real estate units intended for short-term rentals pursuant to Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 24 April 2017, No. 50, converted, with amendments, by Law No. 96 of 21 June 2017, and hotel and non-hotel tourist-accommodation facilities defined pursuant to current regional regulations and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano, and shall hold and manage the relative database.”

As a result of the challenged provision, the assignment of the CIN is therefore subordinated, in the Apulia Region, to the prior acquisition of the CIR through the regional platform: in this way, an additional condition is required for the assignment of the national code.

According to the consistent case law of this Court, the matter of the "protection of competition” is subject to a cross-cutting legislative competence that involves multiple material areas, is characterized by its functional nature (identifying purposes rather than objects for the exercise of state legislative power), and serves to legitimize state legislative intervention even in areas intercepting matters of regional legislative competence (Judgments No. 272 and No. 14 of 2004), such as tourism in this specific case.

In the exercise of this competence, the state legislature balances the freedom of economic initiative and other constitutional interests, defining frameworks that the regional legislature is not authorized to alter (among many, Judgments No. 30 of 2016 and No. 80 of 2006). This balancing, within which the evaluation of conflicting interests must always be understood in a systemic, comprehensive, and non-fragmented sense, may therefore lead to an outcome whereby the protection of competition "is also implemented through the provision and related regulation of hypotheses in which it is exceptionally permitted to impose limits on the requirement for a tendential maximum liberalization of economic activities” (again, Judgment No. 30 of 2016, citing Judgment No. 49 of 2014).

The configuration of the market through the establishment of specific conditions for operators to access the sector falls within the matter of the protection of competition thus outlined (Judgment No. 56 of 2020).

This Court has clarified that, from a competitive perspective, the uniformity of regulations constitutes a good in itself, "because differing regional regulations are capable of creating regulatory disparities that produce territorial barriers” (Judgment No. 283 of 2009).

Furthermore, in ruling on state provisions introducing the accommodation facility database, this Court has already specified that such regulation, while intercepting the matter of tourism, is aimed at ensuring adequate consumer protection and combating tax evasion through the coordination of relevant data; therefore, the legislation in question, aimed at coordinating regional data and performing a sort of reductio ad unitatem thereof, does not interfere with regional legislative competences in tourism matters "except within the limits strictly necessary for mere coordination” (Judgment No. 179 of 2022).

Therefore, if—within the intertwining of areas of competence that may come into play in regulating the sector (competition, tourism, statistical and IT informational coordination)—state and regional registration of accommodation facilities through different codes can undoubtedly coexist, what instead conflicts with the exclusive legislative competence of the State in the protection of competition is the qualification of the regional code as a prerequisite for the assignment of the state one, since, in this way, the regional regulation introduces an additional burden on local operators, which affects the state power to establish conditions for market access in a uniform manner.

The unconstitutionality of Article 5(1)(b) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025 must therefore be declared.

7.– The second ground of appeal challenges Article 11(1)(b) and (c) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, for violation of Article 117(3) of the Constitution, in relation to Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001, serving as an interposed state norm, and with reference to Article 117(2)(m) of the Constitution, for infringement of the exclusive legislative competence of the State in determining the essential levels of performance concerning civil and social rights that must be guaranteed throughout the national territory.

The challenged provision amended Article 4 of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of 2017, concerning the regulation of changes of use, by inserting two parenthetical clauses: in paragraph 3, "[w]ithout prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1-quinquies of Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001”; in paragraph 4, "[w]ithout prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 1-bis, 1-ter, and 1-quater of Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001.”

7.1.– The aforementioned Article 4, in paragraph 3, in its new text, now provides that: "[w]ithout prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1-quinquies of Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001, relevant changes of use referred to in paragraph 1, with or without works, shall be carried out by means of a building permit or by means of a certified report of commencement of activity as an alternative to the building permit, depending on the type of building intervention to which the change of use is connected. Interventions providing for a different use among those attributable to the same functional category shall be carried out by means of a certified report of commencement of activity.”

In the opinion of the President of the Council of Ministers, this provision would conflict with the facilitation measures introduced by Decree-Law No. 69 of 2024, as converted, which, in amending Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001, intervened on provisions constituting fundamental principles of the matter of "territorial governance” and configuring an essential level of performance in the relevant sector.

As an effect of the clause preserving the provisions of paragraph 1-quinquies of the aforementioned Article 23-ter, inserted by the challenged provision, Article 4(3) mentioned above would entail, according to the appellant, that the building qualification regulations outlined therein apply "exclusively to hypotheses of changes of use other than the ‘simplified’ ones attributable to the cases referred to in Article 23-ter, paragraphs 1-bis and 1-ter, of the Consolidated Building Act.”

The questions must be declared inadmissible due to a lack of statement of grounds.

As consistently affirmed by this Court, for the burden of reasoning required in principal proceedings to be adequately discharged, the mere indication of the norms to be compared is not sufficient; it is also necessary to outline their content and demonstrate, with clear, complete, and sufficiently articulated arguments, the conflict between the two sets of regulations (among many, Judgments No. 100 and No. 86 of 2026, No. 196 of 2025, No. 89 of 2024, and No. 48 of 2023).

In this case, in arguing the censure directed against the norm that inserted the saving clause for the provisions of Article 23-ter of the Consolidated Building Act, the appeal fails to adequately illustrate the scope of application of the latter and of Article 4 of Apulia Region Law No. 49 of 2017, and fails to clarify how the challenged Article 11(1)(c), and the parenthetical clause introduced by it, conflict with the invoked interposed parameter.

In support of the alleged conflict, as seen, the appeal is limited to observing that regional building qualification regulations would apply only to hypotheses other than those provided for by the aforementioned Article 23-ter of the Consolidated Building Act, as amended by Decree-Law No. 69 of 2024, as converted.

This assumption, however, is not capable of supporting the censure, as it does not highlight any dystonia between the two state and regional regulations, given that the simplification introduced into the Consolidated Building Act by Decree-Law No. 69 of 2024, as converted, only addressed certain hypotheses of changes of use, which the newly introduced regional provision now expressly preserves.

It remains unclear, therefore, under what profile the challenged regional regulation conflicts with the provisions of the aforementioned Article 23-ter, resulting in the inadmissibility of the proposed questions.

7.2.– The same conclusions must be reached regarding Article 11(1)(c) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, which preserves the provisions of paragraphs 1-bis, 1-ter, and 1-quater of Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001, with reference to which identical censures were proposed.

8.– The third ground of appeal also challenges Article 11(1)(d) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, which introduced new paragraph 5-bis into Article 4 of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of 2017, with reference to Article 117(3) of the Constitution, for infringement of the fundamental principles laid down by the State in the matter of territorial governance, in relation to Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001, and with reference to Article 117(2)(m) of the Constitution, for infringement of the exclusive legislative competence of the State in determining the essential levels of performance concerning civil and social rights.

The aforementioned paragraph 5-bis, in establishing that the provisions of paragraphs 1-bis, 1-ter, and 1-quater of Article 23-ter of the Consolidated Building Act, or of the regional norms implementing them, prevail over conflicting provisions of general urban planning instruments already approved and effective as of the date of entry into force of Decree-Law No. 69 of 2024, as converted, preserves the "limitations” on changes of use provided for by urban planning instruments referred to in the preceding paragraph 5.

In the appellant’s opinion, the norm fails to clarify that state simplification provisions prevail, in any case, over conflicting provisions of urban planning instruments approved prior to the entry into force of Decree-Law No. 69 of 2024, as converted.

Furthermore, the establishment of "limitations” by local authorities would deprive the scope of Article 23-ter of the Consolidated Building Act of its content, as that article—with regard to the hypotheses of changes of use identified therein—intends to set common standards across the national territory, allowing urban planning instruments solely to provide for "conditions.”

8.1.– The question is well-founded.

The wording of paragraphs 5 and 5-bis of Article 4 of Apulia Region Law No. 48 of 2017, as amended by the challenged provision, is as follows: "5. Municipal urban planning instruments shall establish limitations on changes of use whenever requirements for the protection of health, safety, the environment, the landscape, historical, artistic, and cultural heritage, urban decorum, as well as the safeguarding and enhancement of the identifying and traditional characteristics of the social and architectural context, exist.

Article 23-ter of the Consolidated Building Act, in paragraphs 1-bis, 1-ter, and 1-quater, establishes in turn: "1-bis. The change of use of an individual real estate unit within the same functional category is always permitted, in compliance with sector regulations, without prejudice to the possibility for municipal urban planning instruments to establish specific conditions.

1-ter. Changes of use between the functional categories referred to in paragraph 1, letters a), a-bis), b), and c), of an individual real estate unit located in properties included in zones A), B), and C) referred to in Article 2 of the Decree of the Minister of Public Works No. 1444 of April 2, 1968, or in equivalent zones as defined by relevant regional laws, are likewise always permitted, in compliance with the conditions referred to in paragraph 1-quater and sector regulations, and without prejudice to the possibility for municipal urban planning instruments to establish specific conditions.

1-quater. For individual real estate units, the change of use referred to in paragraph 1-ter is always permitted, without prejudice to the possibility for municipal urban planning instruments to establish specific conditions, including the targeting of the change of use to a form of utilization of the real estate unit consistent with the prevailing one in other real estate units present in the property.”

The state provision, with a view to facilitating, in certain expressly identified hypotheses, the change of use of individual real estate units within the same functional category and among the residential, tourist-accommodation, productive, managerial, and commercial functional categories, has recognized the possibility for municipal urban planning instruments to establish exclusively "conditions,” understood as quota-setting measures for requests for changes of use aimed at preserving the layout and harmonious development of the territory, which in any case must not amount to limitations or restrictions.

8.2.– This Court, in ruling on a similar regional provision that allowed municipalities to establish specific "conditions and limitations” on changes of use, observed that "‘conditions’ refer to specific, non-preclusive measures that objectively concern the entire municipal territory and constitute ‘a mechanism of flexibility that allows the local authority to take into account the concrete needs of orderly territorial development,’” whereas "limitations” constitute "a tendentially broader and more invasive concept on the part of the planning activity of municipalities, and have a more intense impact on property rights” (Judgment No. 61 of 2026).

Consequently, the provision of limitations by urban planning instruments has been deemed in violation of the provisions of the aforementioned Article 23-ter.

Similarly, the challenged provision—which, while enshrining the prevalence of the provisions of the Consolidated Building Act over conflicting provisions of urban planning instruments already approved and effective as of the date of entry into force of Decree-Law No. 69 of 2024, as converted, nevertheless preserves the "limitations” on changes of use provided for by urban planning instruments referred to in the preceding paragraph 5—presents the same conflicting content with the aforementioned interposed parameter.

8.3.– The unconstitutionality of Article 11(1)(d) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025 must therefore be declared, limited to the words "[w]ithout prejudice to the limitations referred to in paragraph 5.”

9.– Article 14(1)(g) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025 is challenged with reference to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, for infringement of the exclusive legislative competence of the State in the matter of environmental protection, in relation to Article 96(1) of Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006 and Article 12 of Legislative Decree No. 79 of 1999, serving as interposed state norms, as well as Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution.

The challenged provision, by amending Article 11(10) of Apulia Region Law No. 7 of 2025, restricted the requirement of the binding opinion of the Basin Authority to diversion concessions for uses other than hydroelectric use.

In the appellant’s opinion, the provision would conflict with Article 96(1) of Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006, which establishes that the binding opinion of the Basin Authority must be acquired for all public water diversions, without distinctions between large and small diversions and without exceptions for hydroelectric uses.

The challenged provision would also be constitutionally illegitimate for violation of Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution, since the difference in treatment between hydroelectric diversions and other water uses would be completely unreasonable and would conflict with the principles of impartiality and sound performance of public administration.

9.1.– Preliminarily, it must be noted that Apulia Region Law No. 8 of June 23, 2026, entitled "Amendments to Regional Law No. 7 of May 30, 2025 (Regional regulation of the use of surface and groundwater and various provisions),” amended the challenged provisions.

In particular, Article 6 of the aforementioned regional law replaced Article 11 of Apulia Region Law No. 7 of 2025, inter alia adding the following period at the end of paragraph 10: "[f]or concessions relating to both large and small diversions for hydroelectric use, what is provided for by Article 96 of Legislative Decree No. 152/2006 remains unaffected.” In this way, the regional legislature eliminated the conflict with the interposed state norm, restoring its application to all concession applications.

However, the case law of this Court is consistent in affirming that in principal proceedings, the cessation of the subject matter of the dispute occurs only when the ius superveniens has fully satisfying effects on the claims brought by the appeal and, medio tempore, the challenged norm has not had any application (among many, Judgment No. 13 of 2026, No. 122 and No. 89 of 2025, No. 197, No. 151, and No. 68 of 2024).

In this case, although the amendment can be considered satisfying with respect to the censures proposed in the appeal, there are no elements to establish that the challenged norm was not applied prior to the amendment; therefore, the subject matter of the dispute cannot be considered ceased.

9.2.– On the merits, the questions are well-founded.

The state norm invoked as an interposed parameter, Article 96 of Legislative Decree No. 152 of 2006, in paragraph 1, replaced the second paragraph of Article 7 of Royal Decree No. 1775 of 1933, providing that: "[t]he applications referred to in the first paragraph relating to both large and small diversions shall also be transmitted to the territorially competent Basin Authorities which, within the peremptory term of forty days from the date of receipt in the case of applications relating to small diversions, shall communicate their binding opinion to the competent Investigating Office regarding the compatibility of the use with the provisions of the Protection Plan, for the purpose of monitoring the balance of the water or hydrological budget, even pending approval of the aforementioned Plan. If the applications relate to large diversions, the deadline for communicating the aforementioned opinion is extended to ninety days from the date of receipt of the applications themselves. Upon the expiry of the aforementioned terms without any pronouncement having been made, the Minister of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea shall appoint a commissario ad acta who shall act within the same terms running from the date of appointment.”

The regional provision, to the extent that it restricts the Basin Authority's opinion to concession applications for uses other than hydroelectric use, conflicts with the invoked parameter, which requires such opinion without exceptions of any kind, thereby establishing an unalterable standard of protection for the regional legislature.

9.3.– According to the consistent case law of this Court, "environmental and landscape conservation is entrusted, pursuant to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, to the exclusive care of the State” (Judgments No. 82 of 2024, No. 160 of 2021, No. 178 and No. 172 of 2018, and No. 103 of 2017).

The matter of environmental protection identifies a cross-cutting legislative competence, governed by a teleological element, the unfolding of which suggests possible interference with the exercise of legislative competences belonging to the regions, such as territorial governance and health protection (Judgments No. 16 of 2024, No. 160 of 2023, No. 191, No. 144, and No. 21 of 2022, No. 189, No. 158, No. 86, and No. 21 of 2021, and No. 88 of 2020).

In particular, this Court has affirmed that state legislative provisions act as a limit on the regulations that regions enact in matters within their competence, if and when the state norm has established the point of equilibrium between opposing requirements (Judgments No. 16 of 2024, No. 88 of 2020, No. 197 of 2014, No. 300, No. 145, and No. 58 of 2013, No. 66 of 2012, and No. 225 of 2009).

Furthermore, regional legislative competence finds a further limit in the face of state legislative interventions aimed at uniformly regulating the administrative procedure applicable for environmental protection purposes (Judgment No. 82 of 2024), as in this case.

9.4.– The challenged provision must therefore be declared constitutionally illegitimate with reference to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, with the absorption of the further censures.

10.– Finally, Article 14(1)(k) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025 has been challenged with reference to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, for infringement of the exclusive state competence in environmental protection, in relation to Article 21 of Royal Decree No. 1775 of 1933, as well as with reference to Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution.

The challenged provision amended Article 21(1) of Apulia Region Law No. 7 of 2025 by deleting the word "maximum” with reference to the duration of large diversion concessions for industrial use, thereby providing for a fixed fifteen-year duration of the concession.

The amendment introduced, by eliminating any discretionary evaluation by the granting administration regarding a shorter duration of the concession, would conflict with the interposed state norm referred to in Article 21 of Royal Decree No. 1775 of 1933, the second paragraph of which provides for large diversion concessions for industrial use a duration not exceeding fifteen years.

Furthermore, the establishment of an unalterable duration would constitute an exception in peius to the levels of environmental protection guaranteed by state legislation, also conflicting with the principles of reasonableness and sound performance of public administration.

In this case, it must be preliminarily observed that the regional legislature, by means of Article 11(1)(a) of Apulia Region Law No. 8 of 2026, amended Article 21 of Apulia Region Law No. 7 of 2025, reintroducing the word "maximum” with reference to the fifteen-year duration of the concession and thereby eliminating the alleged defect.

However, even with reference to this provision, there are no elements to consider that it was not applied until the moment of the amendment, with the consequence that the subject matter of the dispute cannot be deemed ceased.

10.1.– On the merits, the question is well-founded.

Article 21 of Royal Decree No. 1775 of 1933 establishes, in its second paragraph, that: "[c]oncessions for large diversions for industrial use shall be stipulated for a duration not exceeding fifteen years and may be made conditional upon the implementation of water savings through water recycling or reuse, within the quantitative and temporal terms to be established upon the granting of the concession, taking into account the best technologies applicable to the specific case.”

The elimination of the possibility of modulating the duration of the concession by setting a term lower than the statutory maximum violates the exclusive legislative competence of the State in environmental protection, as it alters the balance between economic exploitation requirements and environmental protection established by state legislation.

10.2.– The challenged provision must therefore be declared constitutionally illegitimate with reference to Article 117(2)(s) of the Constitution, with the absorption of the censures relating to Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution.

per questi motivi [for these reasons]

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1) Declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 5(1)(b) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of September 29, 2025, entitled "11th Legislative Term – 27th provision recognizing off-budget debts pursuant to Article 73(1)(e) of Legislative Decree No. 118 of June 23, 2011, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 126 of August 10, 2014, and various provisions”;

2) Declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 11(1)(d) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, limited to the words "[w]ithout prejudice to the limitations referred to in paragraph 5”;

3) Declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 14(1)(g) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025;

4) Declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 14(1)(k) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025;

5) Declares inadmissible the questions of constitutionality of Article 11(1)(b) and (c) of Apulia Region Law No. 15 of 2025, brought with reference to Article 117(2)(m) and (3) of the Constitution by the President of the Council of Ministers, by means of the appeal indicated in the heading.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on July 8, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Marco D’ALBERTI, Rapporteur

Igor DI BERNARDINI, Registrar

Deposited in the Registry on October 8, 2026