JUDGMENT NO. 179

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 Article 5, paragraph 3, letter a), of Apulia Region Law No. 14 of July 30, 2009 (Extraordinary and urgent measures in support of the construction industry and for the improvement of the quality of the residential building stock), brought by the Council of State, Fourth Section, in the proceedings pending between A.P. and the Municipality of Porto Cesareo, by means of an order dated November 19, 2025, registered under No. 17 of the 2026 register of orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 7, 1st Special Series, for the year 2026.

Having regard to the intervention brief filed by the Apulia Region;

having heard in chambers on September 21, 2026 the Judge Rapporteur Roberto Nicola Cassinelli;

having deliberated in chambers on September 21, 2026.

Ritenuto in fatto

1.– By order dated November 19, 2025, registered under No. 17 of the 2026 register of orders, the Council of State, Fourth Section, raised incidental questions as to the constitutional legitimacy of Article 5, paragraph 3, letter a), of Apulia Region Law No. 14 of July 30, 2009 (Extraordinary and urgent measures in support of the construction industry and for the improvement of the quality of the residential building stock), for infringement of Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of Presidential Decree No. 380 of June 6, 2001, enacting the «Consolidated text of legislative and regulatory provisions concerning building matters. (Text A)».

1.1.– Called upon to rule on the appeal brought by A.P. for the reformation of judgment No. 794 of June 16, 2023, of the Regional Administrative Court for Apulia, Lecce, First Section, brought against the Municipality of Porto Cesareo, the referring judge states that the appellant A.P., who is the owner of a residential building located within the territory of the aforementioned Municipality, had obtained (in 2017) a building permit to carry out a 20 percent extension of the existing volume, pursuant to Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009.

Following subsequent discussions with the Municipality, A.P. requested, inter alia, the restitution of the sums paid pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 3, letter a), of Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009, by way of construction contributions (EUR 699.94 for urbanisation charges and EUR 225.69 for construction costs), as well as the sums paid by way of monetisation of standard areas (EUR 714.00).

The Municipality of Porto Cesareo, by note dated April 20, 2021 (prot. no. 0010039), denied the restitution of these sums.

1.2.– The Regional Administrative Court (TAR) for Apulia, seized for the annulment of the aforementioned measure, in the aforementioned judgment No. 794 of 2023, dismissed as unfounded the claims for declaratory relief and for recovery of undue payment (ripetizione dell’indebito) concerning the sums paid.

According to the TAR for Apulia, in fact, Article 5, paragraph 3, letter a), had to be considered a special provision, and consequently there was no room for the application of the exemption provided for as a general rule by Article 17 of the Consolidated Building Text with a view to achieving the same volumes, nor for holding that the monetisation of standard areas was not due.

1.3.– The referring judge further states that, by means of the main appeal, A.P. challenged the first-instance judgment on the grounds of an erroneous reconstruction of the relationship between the regional provision and Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of the Consolidated Building Text, arguing that the State provision, being of a higher hierarchical rank, should also apply to the extraordinary interventions provided for by Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009.

The Municipality of Porto Cesareo lodged a cross-appeal (appello incidentale) and raised an objection of res judicata, due to a lack of specific challenge, regarding that part of the first-instance judgment which had established the mandatory payment of the sums due for the monetisation of standard areas.

2.– Having thus outlined the facts of the case, the referring Council of State seeks the review of the regional provision, which allegedly violates Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution, mediated through Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of the Consolidated Building Text, which embodies a fundamental principle in the matter of «territorial governance» (governo del territorio) and is thus binding upon the regional legislature.

2.1.– The regional provision, insofar as it makes the issuance of the building permit conditional upon the payment of the construction contribution referred to in Article 16 of the Consolidated Building Text for «[a]ll interventions provided for by articles 3 and 4» of the same regional law—and thus also for volumetric extensions of up to 20 percent for single-family residential buildings—would violate Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of the Consolidated Building Text, which exempts from the payment of the construction contribution «renovation and extension interventions, not exceeding 20%, of single-family buildings».

The detected conflict, contrary to what was held by the first-instance court, could not be resolved on the basis of the principle of specialty, since the provisions being compared belong to different hierarchical ranks and the State provision embodies a fundamental principle.

More specifically, the referring judge observes that «in State legislation there is a general provision that subjects [...] the payment of the construction contribution and, likewise in State legislation, there is a special provision, relative to the general rule, which excludes the obligation to pay the aforesaid construction contribution in cases of renovation and extension interventions, not exceeding 20%, of single-family buildings».

The regional provision, in turn, established a generalised obligation to pay the contribution, through a cross-reference to Article 16 of the Consolidated Building Text, thereby precluding the application of the "special” State provision contained in the subsequent Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b).

2.2.– Nor would it be possible to arrive at a constitutionally oriented interpretation of Article 5, paragraph 3, letter a), of Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009, given its literal wording, which is clearly antithetical to the content of the State provision invoked as an interposed parameter.

The review of the constitutional legitimacy of the regional provision is therefore relevant, given its direct impact on the outcome of the decision concerning the claim for restitution.

The referring judge cites the jurisprudence of this Court concerning the actuality of the question and the non-implausibility of the reasoning regarding its relevance (judgments No. 134 of 2016 and No. 67 of 2014).

3.– As regards the non-manifestly unfounded nature of the question, the Council of State invokes the provisions governing the burdensome nature (onerosità) of the building permit and, consequently, the constitutional jurisprudence on the subject.

3.1.– Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Building Text provides that «[s]ubject to the provisions of article 17, paragraph 3, the issuance of the building permit entails the payment of a contribution proportionate to the incidence of urbanisation charges as well as the construction costs, in accordance with the procedures indicated in this article».

Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of the same consolidated text in turn establishes that the contribution is not due «for renovation and extension interventions, not exceeding 20%, of single-family buildings».

3.2.– Constitutional jurisprudence, the referring judge continues, has long explicitly recognised the nature of principle-setting provisions belonging to those governing the burdensome nature of the contribution in question, enacted in the exercise of concurrent legislative competence in the matter of «territorial governance», including provisions containing exemptions or reductions of the ordinarily provided amounts, insofar as they are linked to it by a relationship of co-essentiality or necessary integration (citing judgment No. 247 of 2020, as well as judgment No. 231 of 2016, which cites judgments No. 1033 of 1988 and No. 13 of 1980).

4.– In the incidental proceedings, the Apulia Region entered an appearance, through the person of the President of the Regional Executive (Giunta regionale) pro tempore, asking that the question be declared inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded.

4.1.– The intervening party dwells on the genesis of the regional legislation, which followed the agreement reached between the State, the regions, and local authorities on April 1, 2009 (Agreement, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 6, of Law No. 131 of June 5, 2003, between the State, the regions, and local authorities, concerning measures for economic recovery through construction activity), in implementation of Article 8, paragraph 6, of Law No. 131 of June 5, 2003 (Provisions for the adaptation of the legal system of the Republic to Constitutional Law No. 1 of October 18, 2001).

Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009 implemented the agreement by providing for extraordinary measures for the extension, demolition, and reconstruction of buildings, even by way of derogation from the indices and parameters prescribed by local urban planning.

Article 3, paragraph 1, of the aforementioned regional law provided that residential buildings, as well as non-residential or mixed-use buildings, could be «extended for a single time, up to a limit of 20 percent of the total volume, and in any case by no more than 300 m3 [...]», by way of derogation from the indices and parameters prescribed by the urban planning instrument in force.

4.2.– The regional defense invokes administrative jurisprudence, according to which «[t]he provisions of regional law no. 14 of 2009 [...] constitute a derogation and as such must be applied by strictly adhering to their literal text» (Council of State, First Section, Opinion No. 653 of June 30, 2025), constituting a body of provisions of a derogating scope, which «do not rely upon the same prerequisites required by national legislation» (citing, in this regard, Council of State, Sixth Section, judgment No. 1719 of March 10, 2020; TAR Apulia, Lecce, First Section, judgment No. 564 of April 22, 2021).

4.3.– The State provisions concerning the construction contribution, introduced by Law No. 10 of January 28, 1977 (Provisions for the buildability of land) (Articles 3 and 9) and subsequently remodeled by Articles 16 and 17 of the Consolidated Building Text, together with the constitutional jurisprudence formed thereon, are then examined.

In this regard, the intervening party recalls that by order No. 714 of 1988 this Court, in declaring manifestly unfounded the question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 3, letter b), of Lombardy Regional Law No. 93 of June 7, 1980 (Provisions regarding building in agricultural areas), raised also with reference to Article 117 of the Constitution, stated that the gratuitous nature of the concession, as provided for by Article 9, first paragraph, letter a), of Law No. 10 of 1977, did not constitute a fundamental principle of State legislation, but rather a derogation from the general rule of the burdensome nature of the building concession.

Along similar lines, judgment No. 296 of 1991 affirmed the exhaustive nature of the concessions indicated in Article 9, first paragraph, of Law No. 10 of 1977.

More recently, with judgment No. 182 of 2024, this Court reconstructed the institution of the construction contribution, also recalling rulings of the administrative judge, and specified that derogations from the rule of burdensome contributions provided for by Article 17, paragraph 3, of the Consolidated Building Text «are always aimed at pursuing general interests of a solidary nature or at providing incentives for activities and interventions that have a positive impact on the environment».

4.4.– On the subject of exemptions from the payment of the construction contribution, the intervening party also invokes administrative jurisprudence.

Already with reference to Article 9, first paragraph, letter d), of Law No. 10 of 1977, the Council of State stated that, in providing for the exemption from the payment of the contribution for restoration, conservative consolidation, renovation, and extension interventions not exceeding 20 percent of single-family buildings, the legislature «aims to exempt from the concession contribution any building intervention on existing buildings intended for the habitation of a single family unit» (Council of State, Seventh Section, judgment No. 302 of January 9, 2024).

The gratuitous concession is thus confirmed as an exceptional figure, and the provision establishing it is a derogating provision with respect to the rule of burdensome contributions (Council of State, Second Section, judgment No. 2939 of April 12, 2021), to be interpreted restrictively.

The ratio of the exemption has been found in the need to protect and safeguard the housing needs of the family unit, with the corollary that the notion of single-family buildings must be understood not so much in a structural sense as in a socio-economic sense, identifying small real estate property, since only this is worthy of privileged treatment.

5.– Having outlined the regulatory and jurisprudential framework, the regional defense formulates multiple objections of inadmissibility regarding the question.

5.1.– First, the order would be deficient regarding the description of the facts, specifically as to the morpho-typological characteristics of the building subject to the main proceedings. The referring judge allegedly limited himself to stating that the appellant owns a residential building, whereas, according to administrative jurisprudence, exemption from the contribution presupposes that the property is intended exclusively as a residential home for a single family unit (citing also Council of State, Fourth Section, judgment No. 8753 of November 10, 2025).

This descriptive gap would make it impossible to assess the applicability of the exemption provided by the State provision to the case sub iudice.

5.2.– A further limitation to the admissibility of the question lies in the inadequate reconstruction of the regulatory and jurisprudential framework.

The referring judge allegedly failed to account for the "derogating” nature of Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009, which permitted extraordinary interventions for the extension of residential buildings, as well as non-residential or mixed-use buildings, in variance with urban planning parameters, such as to require an express building permit (citing Council of State, Fourth Section, judgment No. 3002 of April 9, 2025).

On the other hand, the judge a quo also failed to consider that, pursuant to the provision of Article 16, paragraph 4, of the Consolidated Building Text, in the case of building interventions in derogation from urban planning parameters, the municipality establishes their impact on urbanisation charges and requires the applicant not only to pay the construction contribution but also to pay a share (not less than 50 percent) of an additional contribution, the so-called extraordinary contribution.

According to the Apulia Region, the question would be inadmissible due to a lack of reasoning on its non-manifestly unfounded nature (citing, inter-alia, judgments of this Court No. 128 of 2024, No. 184, No. 42, and No. 2 of 2023), and due to an inadequate reconstruction of the regulatory framework, which compromises the logical-argumentative thread of the challenge (judgments No. 201 of 2021 and No. 134 of 2018; order No. 261 of 2020).

5.3.– Finally, the intervening party objects to the admissibility of the question due to the failure to attempt a conformative interpretation, which is furthermore a consequence of the failure to correctly frame the challenged regional provision in relation to the derogating force (vis derogatoria) of the regional legislation.

The referring judge allegedly failed to even attempt to bring the regional provision within the paradigm of interventions by way of derogation, for which Article 16, paragraph 4, letter d-ter), of the Consolidated Building Text presupposes the payment of the construction contribution, to which it adds the further burden of the extraordinary contribution.

Constant constitutional jurisprudence is cited, according to which, for the admissibility of a question, «it is sufficient that the judge a quo explores the possibility of an interpretation compatible with the Fundamental Charter and [...] consciously excludes it» (judgment No. 262 of 2015 and, subsequently, judgment No. 133 of 2019; along the same lines, judgments No. 202 of 2023, No. 139 of 2022, No. 11 of 2020, No. 189, No. 78 of 2019, and No. 42 of 2017).

In the present case, based on a merely apparent antinomy between the interposed parameter and the regional provision, the referring judge allegedly shirked the mandatory duty to attempt a constitutionally oriented interpretation of the challenged provision, in compliance with the principle that a statutory provision can be declared unconstitutional only when it is impossible to attribute to it a meaning that renders it compatible with the invoked parameters (citing judgments No. 3 of 2015 and No. 17 of 2010 of this Court).

6.– On the merits, the question is unfounded.

6.1.– The intervening party contests the reasoning of the referring judge, who invoked constitutional jurisprudence according to which the nature of a principle-setting norm belonging to the provision establishing the burdensome nature of the permit contribution includes provisions containing derogations or reductions of the ordinarily provided amount of the construction contribution, insofar as they are linked to it by a relationship of co-essentiality or necessary integration.

Leaving aside the observation that the rulings cited by the referring judge concerned cases of "widening” the perimeter of exemption by regional rules suspected of unconstitutionality, the regional defense observes that the co-essentiality of provisions exempting payment from the principle of burdensome contributions was affirmed by this Court (judgment No. 1033 of 1988, point 4.3. of the Law Grounds) insofar as it contributes «to determining the effective scope and positive characterisation of the principle itself», so that the gratuitous nature of the building permit is not «a fundamental principle of State legislation, but rather a derogation from the general rule of the burdensome nature of the building concession» (order No. 714 of 1988).

From this perspective, the challenged regional provision, which mandates the payment of the contribution for extraordinary extension interventions in derogation from the urban planning instrument, cannot conflict with Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of the Consolidated Building Text, which provides for an exemption from the contribution for ordinary interventions conforming to the urban planning instrument.

The referring judge, on the contrary, seeks to extend the exemption to a factual scenario not contemplated by the State provision.

6.2.– Finally, the intervening party invokes this Court's judgment No. 247 of 2020 (point 3.2. of the Law Grounds), in which it was affirmed that the obligation to pay the contribution is linked to the increased urban load resulting as an effect of the building intervention. This would occur with interventions by way of derogation, provided for by Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009, which grant a volumetric bonus not complying with urban planning indices and parameters, thereby generating a greater demand for territorial facilities.

The difference between the rewarding regime introduced by the aforementioned regional law and the solidary ratio of the exemption provided in the interposed parameter is therefore evident (again citing judgment No. 182 of 2024, where the additional volume deriving from the application of the regional "House Plan” is connected to the distinct purpose of reviving the economy through support for construction activity, as also clarified by judgment No. 70 of 2020, point 5.1. of the Law Grounds).

Considerato in diritto

7.– The Council of State, Fourth Section, by means of the order indicated in the heading, entertains doubts as to the constitutional legitimacy of Article 5, paragraph 3, letter a), of Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009, with reference to Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution.

The challenged regional provision, which subjects the volumetric extension of single-family residential buildings up to a limit of 20 percent of the existing volume to the payment of the construction contribution, would violate the fundamental principle of State legislation in the matter of territorial governance contained in Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of the Consolidated Building Text, which provides for the exemption of this type of intervention from the construction contribution.

8.– The referring judge considers that the detected conflict cannot be resolved through interpretation by applying the principle of specialty.

On the one hand, in fact, the text of the challenged regional provision, pursuant to which the building permit in the case sub iudice was issued, is unequivocal in making the issuance of the permit conditional upon the payment of the construction contribution referred to in Article 16 of the Consolidated Building Text, expressly cited by the regional legislature; on the other hand, the provision contained in Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of the Consolidated Building Text, being co-essential to defining the scope of the principle of burdensome contributions, likewise embodies a fundamental principle of the matter and as such cannot be derogated from by the regions.

9.– Preliminarily, the objections of inadmissibility of the question formulated by the Apulia Region must be examined.

9.1.– According to the regional defense, the referral order suffers from a deficient description of the facts, with repercussions on the relevance of the question. The judge a quo allegedly failed to specify the morpho-typological characteristics of the building subject to extension, which would have been necessary to demonstrate that it is a property potentially subject to exemption from the construction contribution. According to the settled case law of administrative jurisprudence, exemption from the construction contribution presupposes in fact that the property is intended exclusively as a residence for a single family unit and is of modest size (Council of State, No. 302 of 2024 and No. 2939 of 2021).

The objection is unfounded.

It is true that administrative jurisprudence, confirmed by this Court (inter-alia, judgment No. 182 of 2024), has identified the ratio of the exemption in the solidary need to improve the habitability conditions of family units and that, therefore, not every single-family residential building can benefit from such a derogation from the principle of burdensome contributions.

However, in the present case, the referring judge specified that it is a single-family building and indicated the amount paid by the owner to obtain the building permit, equal to EUR 699.94 for urbanisation charges and EUR 225.69 for construction costs, for a total of EUR 925.63. Given that this is a modest amount, it can be inferred that the building subject to extension up to 20 percent of the existing volume is itself of limited size, and that therefore one is in the presence of a small real estate property, which as such is a recipient, according to the cited jurisprudence, of the benefit of exemption from the construction contribution.

In conclusion, there is no descriptive gap that prevents the review of the relevance of the question.

The reconstruction of the facts accomplished by the referring judge indeed makes it possible to consider plausible the assessment of the relevance of the question, which is founded upon the consideration that the referring judge himself must apply the challenged regional provision for the purpose of ruling on the claim for restitution of the sums paid by way of construction contributions by the main appellant.

According to the constant jurisprudence of this Court, the review of relevance consists in verifying the non-implausibility of the logical path followed and of the reasons why the referring judge asserts the necessity of applying the challenged provision (inter-alia, judgments No. 10 of 2026, No. 197, No. 154 of 2025, and No. 148 of 2024).

9.2.– The Apulia Region has, moreover, raised an objection as to the inadmissibility of the question on two grounds: the inadequate reconstruction of the regulatory and jurisprudential framework and the failure to attempt a conformative interpretation.

Both objections are based on the assumption that the alleged antinomy between the challenged regional provision and Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of the Consolidated Building Text is merely apparent, given that the special rules dictated by the regional legislature should prevail. The referring judge allegedly failed to take into account the derogating nature of Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009, implementing the "House Plan” referred to in the Agreement of April 1, 2009, and, ultimately, the extraordinary nature of the building extension interventions permitted pursuant to Article 3 of the aforementioned regional law, in derogation from urban planning parameters or the technical regulations of each individual municipality.

Furthermore, the failure to correctly frame the challenged regional provision within the terms indicated above allegedly prevented the referring judge from fulfilling the duty to attempt a conformative interpretation of the same provision.

9.3.– These objections are likewise unfounded.

As regards the first ground, an examination of the referral order reveals that the referring judge is well aware of the context in which the challenged provision is placed and of the derogating force that informed Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009 implementing the "House Plan 2009”, but doubts whether the regional legislature could derogate from the State provision exempting the extension intervention of single-family residential properties within the limits of 20 percent of the existing volume from the construction contribution.

This doubt is argued with reference to the constant jurisprudence of this Court, according to which Article 17 of the Consolidated Building Text, which introduces derogations from the principle of burdensome contributions established by Article 16 of the Consolidated Building Text, shares the same nature of a principle-setting provision, because it is co-essential to defining the principle of burdensome contributions as to its scope and sphere of effectiveness (inter-alia, judgments No. 182 of 2024, No. 247 and No. 64 of 2020, No. 231 of 2016, and No. 1033 of 1988).

Nor can the Council of State be faulted for failing to attempt an interpretive adjustment of the challenged provision.

The referring judge highlighted that the lack of any cross-reference in the text of the challenged regional provision to the derogating rule contained in Article 17, paragraph 3, letter b), of the Consolidated Building Text precluded an interpretive adjustment.

This conclusion is in line with the now constant orientation of this Court, according to which the duty of conformative interpretation becomes recessive whenever the referring judge argues, as happened in the present case, that the literal tenor of the challenged provision, being unequivocal, does not allow for such a conformative interpretation (inter-alia, judgments No. 88 of 2025, No. 104 of 2023, and No. 18 of 2022). Any disagreement with the reading adopted by the referring judge pertains to the merits and not to procedural admissibility, thus constituting a ground for dismissing the raised question as unfounded rather than inadmissible (inter-alia, also judgments No. 11 of 2020 and No. 42 of 2017).

10.– On the merits, the question is unfounded, because the provision must indeed be given an interpretation different from that advanced by the referring judge.

10.1.– Before clarifying the reasons for this lack of foundation, a brief overview of constitutional jurisprudence on the subject at hand is appropriate.

This Court has consistently affirmed that the burdensome nature of interventions for which a building permit is required is a general rule, constituting a fundamental principle in the matter of «territorial governance» (inter-alia, judgments No. 247 and No. 64 of 2020, No. 296 of 1991, and No. 1033 of 1988).

More recently, it has also been specified that the contribution in question has the «nature of an imposed pecuniary performance of a non-tax character», general and non-synallagmatic; it is composed of two quotas, parameterized respectively to urbanisation charges and construction costs, which represent, on the one hand, the greater sacrifice imposed on the community in terms of urban load and, on the other hand, the increase in the value of real estate property resulting from construction (judgment No. 182 of 2024, point 6.1. of the Law Grounds).

11. Having stated this, the antinomy posited by the referring judge does not exist, and with it the alleged infringement of Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution.

11.1.– Apulia Regional Law No. 14 of 2009, implementing the "House Plan 2009”, provided, as explicitly indicated in Article 1, paragraph 2, for the regulation of extension, demolition, and reconstruction interventions «even by way of derogation» from the indices and parameters prescribed by local urban planning.

In regulating such interventions, the regional legislature, in the challenged Article 5, paragraph 3, letter a), made reference to Article 16 of the Consolidated Building Text, whose effective scope and extent are also determined by the exceptions that contribute to defining its positive characterization, as indeed emerges from the statutory text.

Article 16 of the Consolidated Building Text, entitled «Contribution for the issuance of the building permit», provides in paragraph 1: «[s]ubject to the provisions of article 17, paragraph 3, the issuance of the building permit entails the payment of a contribution proportionate to the incidence of urbanisation charges as well as construction costs, in accordance with the procedures indicated in this article». Article 17, entitled «Reduction or exemption from the construction contribution», provides in paragraph 3: «[t]he construction contribution is not due: [...] b) for renovation and extension interventions, not exceeding 20%, of single-family buildings».

The cross-reference made by the regional legislature to Article 16 of the Consolidated Building Text therefore entails the application of the derogations provided for by Article 17, paragraph 3, of the Consolidated Building Text to the interventions regulated by the regional law and, in this case, the exemption from the construction contribution for extension interventions of single-family buildings within 20 percent of the existing volume.

12.– The wording of the challenged regional provision, contrary to the opinion of the referring judge, contains within itself the answer to the doubt raised by the constitutional legitimacy question.

13.– Based on the foregoing, the question must be declared unfounded.

per estos motivos

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares unfounded the question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 5, paragraph 3, letter a), of Apulia Region Law No. 14 of July 30, 2009 (Extraordinary and urgent measures in support of the construction industry and for the improvement of the quality of the residential building stock), raised, with reference to Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution, by the Council of State, Fourth Section, by means of the order indicated in the heading.

So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on September 21, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed in the Registry on November 2, 2026

The anonymized version conforms in text to the original