JUDGMENT NO. 183

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 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Region Law No. 3 of January 30, 2026 (Urgent measures to address damages caused by adverse weather events on January 19, 20, and 21, 2026), brought by the President of the Council of Ministers, by means of an appeal notified on March 31, 2026, filed with the registry on the same date, registered under No. 6 of the appeals register for 2026, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, 1st Special Series, No. 16, for the year 2026.

Having regard to the appearance-entered brief by the Sicilian Region;

having heard, at the public hearing of September 22, 2026, the Judge Rapporteur Filippo Patroni Griffi;

having heard State Counsel Emanuele Feola for the President of the Council of Ministers, and Counsel Nicola Dumas for the Sicilian Region;

having deliberated in the chambers on September 22, 2026.

Rits in Fact

1.− By means of an appeal registered under No. 6 of the 2026 appeals register, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, brought challenges regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Region Law No. 3 of January 30, 2026 (Urgent measures to address damages caused by adverse weather events on January 19, 20, and 21, 2026), with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letters e) and o), of the Constitution, and "furthermore” to Articles 14, letter g), and 17, letters f) and h), of Constitutional Law No. 2 of February 26, 1948 (Conversion into constitutional law of the Statute of the Sicilian Region, approved by Royal Legislative Decree No. 455 of May 15, 1946), in relation to various interposed parameters.

The challenged provision establishes that "[i]n consideration of the state of emergency due to the calamity declared by resolution of the Council of Ministers of January 26, 2026, the interventions referred to in this article shall not be subject to social security contribution regularity until December 31, 2026, by way of derogation from the provisions governing the matter.”

The appellant complains that the regional provision encroaches upon the exclusive legislative competence of the State in the matters of "protection of competition” and "social security” and "furthermore” exceeds the primary legislative power of the Region in the matter of "public works, with the exception of major public works of predominantly national interest” (Article 14, letter g, of the Statute of the Sicilian Region) and the concurrent legislative power in the matters of "social legislation: employment relations, social security and social assistance, observing the minimum standards established by State laws” (Article 17, letter f, of the Statute of the Sicilian Region) and "assumption of public services” (Article 17, letter h, of the Statute of the Sicilian Region).

1.1.− The State Attorney General’s Office premises that the preceding paragraphs of Article 1 of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026 identify a series of measures aimed at tackling the damages caused by exceptionally intense meteorological phenomena occurring in Sicilian territory on January 19–21, 2026.

In particular, as illustrated in the introductory pleading, the regulatory intervention provides for: "a) [certain] increases in expenditure authorizations already provided for under current legislation (paragraph 1); b) [the] entry of an expenditure of 5,000 thousand euros, allocated for current expenses for the 2026 financial year, into a specific fund designated as ‘Fund for interventions consequential to the state of regional crisis and emergency within the competence of the regional department of agriculture’ (paragraph 2); c) [the] authorization [f]or the General Accounting Officer to make the budget variations necessary to enter the appropriations earmarked for the purposes under examination into different chapters, in order to align them with the integrated chart of accounts and thereby ensure the unitary recording of management events, including the provision for the establishment of new chapters, without prejudice to the overall expenditure provided for each chapter (paragraph 3); d) [the] allocation of resources from the Regional Fund for current-account interventions consequential to the declaration of the state of crisis and emergency referred to in Article 3 of the law [of the Sicilian Region No. 13 of July 7, 2020 (Provisions for the acceleration of administrative procedures and for the execution of urgent infrastructural interventions)] — in an amount of not less than 5,000 thousand euros — to the financing also of interventions, to be implemented through IRFIS-FinSicilia S.p.A., aimed at supporting the management activities of bathing establishments and other economic activities located on the coastlines where the adverse weather events of January 19, 20, and 21, 2026 occurred (paragraph 4)”; e) the establishment of a specific ceiling within the Sicily Fund referred to in Article 2 of Sicilian Region Law No. 1 of February 22, 2019 (Programmatic and corrective provisions for the year 2019. Regional stability law), the implementing rules of which are deferred to a subsequent decree of the Director-General of the regional department of productive activities (paragraph 5); f) the authorization for the regional civil protection department, upon request by the aforementioned regional department of productive activities, to transfer the allocated resources, including management expenses, to the aforementioned IRFIS-FinSicilia S.p.A., which shall concretely proceed to make payments in favor of the beneficiaries (paragraph 6).

The President of the Council of Ministers contends that the challenged provision fits into this regulatory context, allowing the beneficiaries of the illustrated measures to receive the related financial resources even in the absence of the requirement of social security contribution regularity, "by way of derogation from the provisions governing the matter.”

However, such an exemption would clearly conflict with "national legislation” which makes the receipt of public financial aids — "as well as” the awarding of public contracts, the management of services, or an activity under concession or convention agreement — conditional upon the economic operator’s regular contribution standing vis-à-vis social security and insurance institutions.

In this regard, the appellant illustrates that "in the matter under examination, the following come into play”:

− Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 1-bis, of Decree-Law No. 210 of September 25, 2002 (Urgent provisions concerning the emergence of undeclared work and part-time employment relationships), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 266 of November 22, 2002, which establishes that undertakings entrusted with public procurement contracts and those managing services and activities under convention or concession are required to submit to the administration the certification concerning their contribution regularity issued by the competent institutions, under penalty of revocation of the contract or concession as well as forfeiture of the convention;

− Article 1, paragraph 1175, of Law No. 296 of December 27, 2006, bearing "Provisions for the formation of the annual and multiannual state budget (2007 financial law)”, according to which, as from July 1, 2007, "regulatory and contribution benefits provided for by labor and social legislation regulations” are conditional, inter alia, upon the possession by employers of the "single document of contribution regularity” (DURC);

− Article 31, paragraphs 3, 8-bis, and 8-ter, of Decree-Law No. 69 of June 21, 2013 (Urgent provisions for economic relaunch), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 98 of August 9, 2013, "according to which [also] the disbursement of ‘grants, contributions, subsidies, financial aids and economic advantages of any kind’, for which the acquisition of the ‘single document of contribution regularity’, valid for a duration of 120 days from the date of issue, is required (paragraph 8-ter), is subject to paragraph 3 of the same Article 31 (paragraph 8-bis), which — in the case of public contracts for works, services, and supplies — provides that, should contribution default appear, the relative amount shall be withheld by the Contracting Authority to be subsequently remitted directly to the social security and insurance institutions” (so-called substitution intervention);

− Articles 94 "et seq.” of Legislative Decree No. 36 of March 31, 2023 (Public Contracts Code implementing Article 1 of Law No. 78 of June 21, 2022, delegating the Government regarding public contracts), which list among the grounds for exclusion from public contract award procedures the violation of obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions;

− Articles 9, paragraph 1, letter d), 17, paragraph 2, letter i), and 18, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree No. 184 of November 27, 2025, bearing "Code of incentives, implementing Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, letter b), of Law No. 160 of October 27, 2023”, which, within the framework of the regulation on business incentives, provide for the absence of the requirement of contribution regularity as a ground for exclusion from procedures for the allocation of benefits (Article 9, paragraph 1, letter d) and as a ground for revocation of those granted (Article 17, paragraph 2, letter i), and furthermore, at the disbursement stage of the recognized incentive amount, empower the competent public administration to withhold a sum equal to the ascertained default for subsequent remittance to the social security and insurance institutions (Article 18, paragraph 4).

Therefore, state provisions prescribe the requirement of contribution regularity "not only to obtain the award of a public contract or the management of a service or an activity under convention or concession,” "but also” for the acquisition of public financial aids, establishing the exclusion from the relative procedures of operators lacking contribution regularity, the revocation or forfeiture of granted disbursements, in addition to recognizing the aforementioned power of substitution intervention in favor of the disbursing administration.

By demanding a "positive DURC” from economic operators, the state legislature pursues the purpose of "the protection of regular work and the safeguarding of the related social security and assistance rights with evident repercussions also on the ‘protection of competition’” (citing the judgment of this Court No. 141 of 2020).

In conclusion, according to the Government, Article 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026, by enacting a generic and undifferentiated derogation from the aforementioned state legislation, invades the exclusive legislative competence of the State in the matters of "protection of competition” and "social security” under Article 117, second paragraph, letters e) and o), of the Constitution.

Nor is such a derogation founded upon the competences assigned by the special statute of the Sicilian Region.

Indeed, primary legislative power in the matter of "public works, with the exception of major public works of predominantly national interest” (Article 14, letter g, of the Statute of the Sicilian Region) and concurrent power in the matters of "social legislation: employment relations, social security and social assistance, observing the minimum standards established by State laws” (Article 17, letter f, of the Statute of the Sicilian Region) and "assumption of public services” (Article 17, letter h, of the Statute of the Sicilian Region) find limits, respectively, in state rules of "economic-social reform” and in the " ‘general principles and interests upon which State legislation is informed’”. The aforementioned state rules imposing the requirement of contribution regularity are to be traced back to such limits owing to the underlying rationale behind them.

2.− The Sicilian Region has entered an appearance in the proceedings, requesting that the challenges be declared inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded.

2.1.− As a preliminary matter, the respondent has raised an objection concerning the lack of adequate reasoning in the appeal.

In its view, the censures are generic and assertive and, therefore, fail to fulfill the burden of reasoning incumbent upon the appellant according to the consistent case law of this Court.

In particular, the President of the Council of Ministers invokes the constitutional parameters only in the abstract, without identifying the specific state discipline impacted by the challenged regional rule and without explicitly stating, in concrete terms, the reasons why the latter would determine an actual alteration of the competitive system or the social security discipline.

2.2.− On the merits, the Autonomous Region has maintained that the challenges are unfounded.

First of all, the regional defense proceeds to frame the challenged provision and outline its scope.

Article 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026 is placed within the framework of an exceptional regulatory intervention adopted by the Sicilian Region following the adverse meteorological events occurring on January 19, 20, and 21, 2026, and aims to support the recovery of economic and productive activities in the damaged areas.

Therefore, the "derogating” provision has a temporary and circumscribed scope: it is limited to establishing, at the procedural level, that the granting of disbursements established by the same article to cope with the specific emergency situation — financed with regional resources — is not conditional upon the prior demonstration of the requirement of contribution regularity.

It follows — according to the appearance brief — that the rule, on the one hand, does not regulate the social security matter, as it does not affect contribution obligations, nor the powers of assessment, control, and sanction belonging to the competent institutions, and, on the other hand, does not alter the regulation of competition, nor does it introduce advantages apt to significantly influence the market structure.

Ultimately, according to the Sicilian Region, the challenged Article 1, paragraph 7, regulating exclusively the access requirements for regional benefits, should be "traced back to regional competences in the matter of economic development and support for productive activities, as well as to the organization of regional administrative activity.”

2.3.− To its arguments concerning competences, the respondent adds certain considerations on the rule’s consistency with further constitutional principles.

Indeed, according to the Sicilian Region, the provision is consistent with Article 41 of the Constitution, as it is directed at preserving the continuity of productive activities in an emergency context, in compliance with regional autonomy recognized by Article 5 of the Constitution and the principle of subsidiarity referred to in Article 118 of the Constitution.

Above all, Article 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026 satisfies criteria of proportionality and reasonableness.

Firstly, the established irrelevance of contribution regularity for the support measures in question complies with the principle of proportionality: indeed, facing a potentially irreversible risk to the business continuity of entities struck by the calamitous event, it prevents contribution defaults — even of a purely formal character or modest extent — from hindering access to an urgent economic support measure.

Secondly, the regional legislature has struck a reasonable balance between the immediate need to support its economic and productive fabric and the need to guarantee the fulfillment of contribution obligations: the latter is not excluded, but merely left unconsidered, for a limited period of time, as a condition for access to the disbursements *de quibus*.

3.− Close to the public hearing, the President of the Council of Ministers filed a supplementary brief in which he countered the objection raised by the respondent and refuted the purported lack of foundation of the challenges.

As a preliminary matter, the State Attorney General’s Office emphasized that the appeal had exhaustively set forth: 1) the constitutional parameters of a competential nature allegedly violated; 2) the national provisions conditioning the receipt of contributions, "as well as the award of public contracts,” upon the economic operator’s regular contribution standing vis-à-vis social security and insurance institutions; 3) the constitutional case law that has already ruled on the constitutional illegitimacy of regional regulatory interventions concerning the "DURC” (citing judgment No. 141 of 2020); and, lastly, 4) the exceeding of the limits of legislative powers recognized by the special statute.

On the merits, the state defense pointed out that, contrary to what was asserted by the opposing party, the challenged rule is not limited to intervening on aspects of a procedural nature, but directly impacts the substantive discipline dictated by the national legislature regarding contribution regularity, allowing the receipt of public disbursements even in its absence.

By doing so, the regional legislature has derogated from multiple state rules grounded in Article 117, second paragraph, letters e) and o), of the Constitution.

4.− The Sicilian Region has also filed a brief in view of the public hearing.

The respondent reinforced the defenses developed in the appearance brief by arguing: 1) that, in execution of the challenged provision, the public notice was approved by Decree of the Director-General of the Regional Department of Productive Activities No. 235 of February 3, 2026 (Approval of the Public Notice — Extraordinary contributions for damages caused by Cyclone Harry), from which it appears that the contributions subject to the exemption from contribution regularity verification are only those destined for enterprises with operational headquarters in the territories affected by the meteorological events that prove to have suffered damage therefrom. Therefore, such economic aids do not constitute ordinary business incentives, but rather an indemnity-based redress of an extraordinary nature; 2) that the appellant’s reference to this Court’s judgment No. 141 of 2020 is not pertinent, since that ruling declared the constitutional illegitimacy of a regional rule which, unlike the Sicilian one, entailed a "generalized derogation from the DURC”; and 3) that the challenged provision does not apply with regard to procurement contracts and concessions.

Furthermore, the respondent party represented that a subsequent legislative enactment has intervened, consisting of Article 23, paragraph 1-bis, of Decree-Law No. 25 of February 27, 2026 (Urgent interventions to address the emergency caused by the exceptional meteorological events that, starting from January 18, 2026, have struck the territory of the Calabria region, the autonomous region of Sardinia, and the Sicilian Region, as well as further urgent measures to address the landslide of Niscemi and civil protection), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 59 of April 27, 2026. The *ius superveniens* provides that, for subjects residing or having their headquarters in territories affected by exceptional meteorological events occurring from January 18, 2026 onwards, provisions concerning the verification of contribution regularity shall not apply, exclusively for the purpose of disbursing indemnities provided for by the same decree. Therefore, the state legislature has also "deemed compatible with the legal system” a temporary derogation from the verification of contribution regularity limited to the disbursement of emergency support measures for the calamitous events *de quibus*.

5.− Pursuant to Article 10, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Norms for proceedings before the Constitutional Court, specific questions were formulated to the parties, who responded through the filing of reports by the interested regional and state administrations and in oral discussion at the public hearing.

Considered in Law

6.− The President of the Council of Ministers, by means of the appeal indicated in the heading, challenges Article 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026, with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letters e) and o), of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, letter g), and 17, letters f) and h), of the Statute of the Sicilian Region, in relation to various interposed parameters.

The challenged provision establishes that "[i]n consideration of the state of emergency due to the calamity declared by resolution of the Council of Ministers of January 26, 2026, the [urgent] interventions [to address the damages caused by the adverse weather events of January 19, 20, and 21, 2026] shall not be subject to contribution regularity until December 31, 2026, by way of derogation from the provisions governing the matter.”

The appellant alleges that the exemption thus provided (generic and undifferentiated) from the verification of the regular social security and assistance position of economic operators conflicts with "national legislation” which makes the receipt of public financial aids conditional upon the possession of such requirement, "as well as” makes the award of public contracts or the management of services or activities under convention or concession conditional thereupon.

This determines an invasion of the exclusive legislative competence of the State in the matters of the protection of competition (Article 117, second paragraph, letter e, of the Constitution) and social security (Article 117, second paragraph, letter o, of the Constitution) and "furthermore” an exceeding of the limits placed by the special statute on regional competences assigned thereby in the matters of "public works, with the exception of major public works of predominantly national interest” (Article 14, letter g), "social legislation: employment relations, social security and social assistance, observing the minimum standards established by State laws” (Article 17, letter f), and "assumption of public services” (Article 17, letter h).

7.− The examination of the preliminary and merits profiles of the challenges requires defining the factual and regulatory context in which the challenged provision is placed.

Between January 19 and 21, 2026, Sicily — along with Sardinia and Calabria — was struck by exceptionally intense bad-weather episodes, caused by a cyclone (known in news reports as "Cyclone Harry”), which culminated in the landslide occurring in the territory of the Municipality of Niscemi.

Due to the scope and devastating consequences of the aforementioned natural calamity, a regional state of crisis and emergency was immediately declared (Resolution of the Sicilian Regional Government of January 22, 2026, No. 25, bearing "Article 3 of Regional Law No. 13 of July 7, 2020. Declaration of the state of regional crisis and emergency for adverse weather events affecting the territory of the Sicilian Region on January 19, 20, and 21, 2026”), followed also by the declaration of a national state of emergency (Resolution of the Council of Ministers of January 26, 2026, bearing "Declaration of the state of emergency as a consequence of exceptional meteorological events which, starting from January 18, 2026, have affected the territory of the Calabria Region, the Autonomous Region of Sardinia, and the Sicilian Region”).

By Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026, promulgated on the subsequent January 30, the Autonomous Region adopted multiple financial measures "to address the damages caused by the adverse weather events of January 19, 20, and 21, 2026.”

In particular, Article 1, paragraphs 1 to 3, of the aforementioned law provided for and regulated the allocation of substantial regional resources (amounting to 30 million euros) for the implementation of support actions in the affected areas: the sums were entered into specific regional funds prearranged for overcoming emergency situations and, in particular, into the "Regional fund for current-account interventions consequential to the declaration of the state of regional crisis and emergency [...]” and the "Regional solidarity fund for fisheries” (Article 1, paragraph 1), both under the competence of the regional civil protection department, as well as the "Regional fund for current-account interventions consequential to the declaration of the state of regional crisis and emergency within the competence of the Department of Agriculture” (Article 1, paragraph 2).

With subsequent paragraphs 4 to 6 of Article 1, the regional legislature regulated part of the utilization of the amounts entered into the first fund.

In this regard, paragraph 4 prescribes that at least one quarter of the sums be allocated to the "financing of interventions [...] aimed at supporting the management activities of bathing establishments and other activities located on the coastlines that have suffered significant losses and suspensions of economic activities due to the adverse weather events of January 19, 20, and 21, 2026, in order to restore normal operations and avoid environmental and health repercussions.” Paragraphs 5 and 6 regulate the administrative procedure for granting such indemnities, defining the relative competences, from the publication of the specific public notice up to payment to those entitled.

Finally, the challenged provision stipulates that, until December 31, 2026, the financed "[urgent] interventions” are not subject to the verification of contribution regularity. In other words, in the corresponding proceedings, administrations are temporarily exempted from checking the requirement of the economic operators’ regular social security and assistance standing, where prescribed, through the *ex officio* acquisition of the "single document of contribution regularity” (DURC).

As can be deduced from the discussion held in the session for the approval of the regulatory text, the *ratio legis* is to prevent liquidity made available to stem the damage caused by the calamity from being unavailable to "devastated” businesses precisely because of contribution irregularities attributable to the emergency crisis itself: it was illustrated in assembly debate that affected operators would likely be unable to meet the (unwaived) deadlines for social security and assistance contributions immediately following the climatic phenomenon, starting from the then-imminent deadline of February 16, 2026 (Article 32-ter, paragraph 1-bis, of Decree-Law No. 185 of November 29, 2008, bearing "Urgent measures for the support of families, labor, employment, and enterprise and to redesign the national strategic framework in an anti-crisis function”, converted, with amendments, into Law No. 28 of January 2009, 2).

7.1.− To cope with the consequences of the same emergency, the State also intervened by adopting Decree-Law No. 25 of 2026, as converted.

Among the multiple measures adopted — insofar as of strict interest for the resolution of the issues — Decree-Law No. 25 of 2026, as converted, provided for the allocation of substantial resources for granting contributions to redress "damages incurred by private property and economic and productive activities” (Article 1, in conjunction with the aforementioned Article 1, paragraph 448, of Law No. 234 of December 30, 2021, bearing "State budget forecast for the 2022 financial year and multiannual budget for the 2022–2024 triennium”), as well as for granting economic aids in favor of businesses affected by atmospheric adversities in the agriculture, fisheries, and aquaculture sectors (Article 9, in conjunction with the aforementioned Article 5 of Legislative Decree No. 102 of March 29, 2004, bearing "Financial interventions in support of agricultural enterprises, pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 2, letter i), of Law No. 38 of March 7, 2003”).

Regarding the destination of these resources, the conversion law of the decree-law — which entered into force on April 28, 2026 and, therefore, after the filing of the appeal — added a provision similar to the challenged regional one: Article 23, paragraph 1-bis, establishes, in fact, that "provisions concerning the verification of contribution regularity [...] shall not apply, from the date of declaration of the state of emergency [referred to in the aforementioned resolution of the Council of Ministers of January 26, 2026] until December 31, 2026, exclusively for the disbursement of indemnities referred to in Articles 1 and 9” mentioned above.

7.2.− Within the context outlined above, the grounds of appeal may therefore be examined.

8.− As a preliminary matter, the Region has raised the objection of inadmissibility of the entire appeal for lack of reasoning.

The objection is unfounded.

The appeal satisfies the rigorous burden of reasoning which, according to this Court’s case law, is incumbent upon the appellant in proceedings brought in the principal form, as it is required "not only to identify the challenged provisions and the constitutional parameters whose violation it denounces, but also to substantiate the reasons for the alleged conflict with clear, complete, and sufficiently articulated arguments” (see, among many others, judgments No. 26 of 2026, No. 126 of 2025, and No. 169 of 2024).

Indeed, the introductory pleading indicates the constitutional parameters and the interposed state provisions; clearly denounces the conflict of the regional rule exempting from the verification of regular social security and assistance standing with the state provisions that, conversely, would impose it; illustrates, by recalling this Court’s judgment No. 141 of 2020, the reasons why "the acquisition of the ‘DURC’” pertains to the matter of social security "with evident repercussions also on” the protection of competition and, therefore, to the competential titles alleged to be violated; and, finally, confronts the statutory competences claimed to be involved by the challenged discipline, alleging that it exceeds the respective limits. In this regard, it is barely necessary to recall that the failure to consider in the appeal the various regional competences invoked by the respondent does not affect admissibility, pertaining, if anything, to the merits of the issues (judgments No. 28 of 2025 and No. 103 of 2024).

9.− Prior to any other consideration is the identification of the objective scope of the provision and, correlatively, the definition of the *thema decidendum*.

As stated, Article 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026 dispenses from the verification of contribution regularity for economic operators with regard to "[i]nterventions referred to in this article” which, as read in the heading of Article 1 itself, are "[u]rgent interventions to address the damages caused by adverse weather events on January 19, 20, and 21, 2026.”

The broad literal wording used by the regional legislature is nonetheless delimited by historical and systematic data, which univocally lead to referring the exemption exclusively to the disbursement of financial aids in favor of damaged subjects.

Indeed, regarding the *intentio legis*, in the preparatory works of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026 the derogating provision was presented as circumscribed solely to subsidies (thus the reading note drafted by the Budget Service of the Sicilian Regional Assembly) and was defined as a "further measure in favor of subjects who are beneficiaries of interventions” (thus the report of the General Accounting Officer).

As to the regulatory context, it has been seen that the challenged paragraph 7 follows provisions (paragraphs 4 to 6) which, on the one hand, reserve part of the sums made available to support managers of activities located on coastlines hit by meteorological events and, on the other hand, regulate the relative granting procedure up to the payment of amounts recognized in favor of entitled subjects.

Conversely, the exemption does not touch upon the awarding of public contracts to address emergency needs. Indeed, there is no element indicating that such a sphere is included in the derogation, wherein, moreover, checking contribution regularity is imposed with "particular prominence” (judgment No. 141 of 2020), also in consideration of the circumstance that the possession of such requirement "concerns not only the relationship between the public contracting authority and the awardee, but is an essential element to ensure parity of conditions to all economic operators interested in operating in the market in which the tender is placed” (judgment No. 44 of 2023).

This "reductionist” exegesis is comforted by the very tenor of the appeal brought by the Government. Read as a whole, in fact, the appeal censures the regional derogation as conflicting with state rules making the receipt of public disbursements conditional upon contribution regularity, while citing rules imposing the same requirement in the awarding of public contracts solely in further support of this censure, together with those providing for the so-called substitution intervention (i.e., the power of the administration required to pay the subsidy to withhold the amount corresponding to the default resulting from the DURC, to be remitted to social security and insurance institutions).

Thus, among the multiple state provisions which, according to the State Attorney General’s Office, "come into play” "in the matter under examination,” those that effectively rise to the level of interposed parameters are only the provisions requiring "the acquisition of a positive DURC” in public financial aids and, therefore, Article 1, paragraph 1175, of Law No. 296 of 2006, regarding the granting of "regulatory and contribution benefits provided for by labor and social legislation regulations” in favor of employers, and the combined provisions of Articles 9, paragraph 1, letter d), 17, paragraph 2, letter i), and 18, paragraph 3, letter b), of Legislative Decree No. 184 of 2025 regarding "incentives aimed at carrying out investments,” regardless of whether financed with state, regional, or EU resources (incentives which the appeal refers to, in broader terms, as all "aid measures” to businesses).

10.− Having stated this, the challenges brought are unfounded.

10.1.− The alleged breach of the constitutional and statutory division of legislative power requires, first of all, identifying the material scope to which the challenged rule is to be traced back.

To this end, according to this Court’s consistent case law, account must be taken of its rationale, the purpose it pursues, its content, and its object, leaving aside marginal aspects and reflected effects, so as to precisely identify the interest protected (inter alia, judgments No. 200 and No. 84 of 2025, No. 26 of 2024, and No. 124 of 2023). Furthermore, when legislation intersects multiple matters attributed by the Constitution or statutes of special autonomy to different competential titles of the State and regions, it is necessary to identify the material scope that, in individual cases, must be considered predominant (ex plurimis, judgments No. 200 of 2025, No. 6 of 2023, and No. 126 of 2017).

10.1.1.− In this case, the invocation of statutory provisions assigning the competences of the Sicilian Region in the matters of "public works, with the exception of major public works of predominantly national interest” (Article 14, letter g, of the Statute of the Sicilian Region) and "assumption of public services” (Article 17, letter h, of the Statute of the Sicilian Region) must be deemed non-pertinent. Indeed, having clarified that regional exclusion from checking contribution regularity does not involve the sphere of awarding activities by the public administration, the corresponding legislative powers do not come into play. The appeal, *in parte qua*, must certainly be dismissed due to the irrelevance of the relative parameters (among others, judgments No. 163 of 2023, No. 248 and No. 240 of 2022, and No. 163 of 2021).

10.1.2.− Rather, highlighting that Article 1, paragraphs 1 to 7, of the challenged regional law as a whole regulates economic support measures, the material scopes to which these pertain must be identified.

As already affirmed by this Court, where the sectors in which businesses in difficulty, recipients of those measures, operate are multiple (e.g., agriculture, commerce, industry, fisheries, tourism, etc.) "these correspond to as many matters, all essentially of regional competence” (judgment No. 63 of 2008 and, in similar terms, judgment No. 83 of 2018). These, in turn, may find limits in the legislative power of the State, either if conditions exist for their attraction under subsidiarity (judgments No. 179 of 2022 and No. 63 of 2008) or if there is an exercise of the transversal legislative competence in the matter of "protection of competition,” in cases where the aid intervention is characterized by macroeconomic relevance, because it is apt to impact — due to accessibility to all operators and overall impact — on the general economic equilibrium (judgments No. 104 of 2021, No. 83 of 2018, and No. 14 of 2004). Conversely, "interventions tuned to the regional productive reality” remain attracted into the "concurrent or residual legislative competence of the Regions” (judgments No. 104 of 2021, No. 83 of 2018, and, in similar terms, No. 14 of 2004).

11.− Coming to the case at hand, given the illustrated "sectoral and local” destination of the resources under Article 1 of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026, its discipline is not attributable to the "protection of competition” ("in the market”), but is to be traced back to the matters of "civil protection,” of concurrent legislative competence pursuant to Article 117, third paragraph, of the Constitution, as well as "agriculture,” "industry and commerce,” "fisheries,” and "tourism,” which the special statute of the Sicilian Region attributes to its primary legislative competence (Article 14, letters a, d, l, and n), but which must be requalified as residual, similarly to that recognized by Article 117, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution in the same spheres to ordinary statute regions, by virtue of the operation of the "most favorable clause” (Article 10 of Constitutional Law No. 3 of October 18, 2001, bearing "Amendments to Title V of Part Two of the Constitution”).

Within this competential context, the challenged paragraph 7 deals with defining the range of recipients of those resources, expanding it through the provision of the temporary irrelevance of possessing the "moral” requirement of contribution regularity: the rule thus certainly intersects the matter of "social security and social assistance” which Article 17, letter f), of the special statute assigns to the concurrent legislative power of the Autonomous Region — within the limits of the general principles and interests of State legislation. Indeed, the acquisition of the DURC in administrative proceedings is a measure of "indirect” guarantee for the fulfillment of the contribution obligation and, therefore, an institution whose purpose is "the protection of regular work and the safeguarding of the related social security and assistance rights” (judgments No. 44 of 2023 and No. 141 of 2020).

However, the censured rule is also to be ascribed by predominance to the aforementioned regional legislative competence material spheres, in light of its scope as well as its rationale: the essential core of the rule pertains, in fact, to the identification of the beneficiaries of the allocated regional resources and the correlated procedural fulfillments of the competent administrations.

Its impact on the social security matter is instead marginal, since the scrutinizing rule does not interfere in any way with operators’ contribution obligations vis-à-vis social security and insurance institutions, and does not exempt, either permanently or generally, from checking their punctual fulfillment in those procedures for granting public disbursements where state rules impose it.

Indeed, Article 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026 is limited to dispensing from the verification of the requirement of contribution regularity for a limited period of time (granting proceedings initiated and finalized between February 2 and December 31, 2026), within the "exclusive” sphere of granting extraordinary "indemnities” provided for by that specific regulatory act and only in favor of businesses in Sicilian territory damaged by the single natural calamity, operating in certain sectors.

On the other hand, the state legislature too, for disbursements provided to address the same emergency, financed with national funds, deemed the purpose of guaranteeing DURC verification to be recessive compared to that of temporarily supporting productive realities struck by Cyclone Harry: Article 23, paragraph 1-bis, of Decree-Law No. 25 of 2026, as converted — in terms overlapping the challenged regional rule as to scope, intervention objectives, and temporal extension — provides a similar exemption, for the period comprised between January 26 and December 31, 2026, from the verification of contribution regularity "exclusively [in proceedings] for the disbursement of indemnities” for redressing damages suffered by managers of economic and productive activities and, in particular, businesses in the agriculture, fisheries, and aquaculture sectors.

11.1.− Finally, it must be emphasized that, both because of the well-delimited margin of intervention of the challenged Sicilian rule (due to the type of subsidies forming its object and, above all, due to the very restricted temporal scope) and because of its rationale, the difference is manifest between the object of the present decision of ungroundedness and that of the opposite decision adopted in judgment No. 141 of 2020, cited by the appellant: with that ruling, in fact, a regional rule was declared constitutionally illegitimate which instead established an exemption from checking contribution regularity on a permanent basis (without temporal limits) and of a transversal type (relating to the granting of "every type of contribution, benefit, subsidy of an amount inferior to 5,000.00 euros, made with regional resources”).

12.− In light of the considerations set forth, the challenges regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Regional Law No. 3 of 2026 are to be declared unfounded.

on those grounds

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares unfounded the challenges regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 7, of Sicilian Region Law No. 3 of January 30, 2026 (Urgent measures to address damages caused by adverse weather events on January 19, 20, and 21, 2026), brought, with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letters e) and o), of the Constitution and Articles 14, letter g), and 17, letters f) and h), of Constitutional Law No. 2 of February 26, 1948 (Conversion into constitutional law of the Statute of the Sicilian Region, approved by Royal Legislative Decree No. 455 of May 15, 1946), by the President of the Council of Ministers with the appeal indicated in the heading.

So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on September 22, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed in the Registry on November 3, 2026