JUDGMENT NO. 185

YEAR 2026

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

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

has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in proceedings concerning the constitutionality of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3), letter b), numbers 1) and 2), letter c), numbers 1) and 2), letter g), numbers 1) through 4), letter h), number 3), and letter i), number 1), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of October 16, 2025, entitled «Amendments to Regional Law No. 7 of April 21, 2020 (Consolidated Act on Commerce pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of Campania Region Law No. 11 of October 14, 2015) and further transitional provisions», brought by the President of the Council of Ministers by means of an appeal served on December 15, 2025, filed with the registry on the same date, registered under no. 47 of the appeals register of 2025, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, 1st Special Series, No. 2, of the year 2026.

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

having heard Judge Rapporteur Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi at the public hearing of September 23, 2026;

having heard State Counsel Giorgio Santini for the President of the Council of Ministers, and Attorney Almerina Bove for the Campania Region;

deliberated in chambers on September 23, 2026.

The Law in Fact

1.– By an appeal served on December 15, 2025, and filed on the same date, registered under no. 47 of the appeals register of 2025, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General's Office, challenged, inter alia: Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3); letter b), numbers 1) and 2); letter c), numbers 1) and 2); letter g), numbers 1) through 4); letter h), number 3), and letter i), number 1), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of October 16, 2025, entitled «Amendments to Regional Law No. 7 of April 21, 2020 (Consolidated Act on Commerce pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of Campania Region Law No. 11 of October 14, 2015) and further transitional provisions», in reference to Articles 3, 39, and 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution.

2.– The appellant premises that the regional law in question introduces significant amendments to the regional consolidated act on commerce, adopted by Campania Region Law No. 7 of April 21, 2020 (Consolidated Act on Commerce pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of Campania Region Law No. 11 of October 14, 2015). According to the Government, the law exhibits various grounds of constitutional illegitimacy, referring, inter alia, to the specific provisions cited, which are subject to targeted objections.

2.1.– First, Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 is challenged, insofar as it amended Article 6, paragraph 1, of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020 (hereinafter: Consolidated Act on Commerce), introducing, via letter mbis), an autonomous definition of most representative trade associations at the regional level.

In particular, the aforementioned provision established that only trade associations representing businesses operating in the commerce sector shall qualify as such, provided they meet the following requirements: they are established at the regional level, adhere to national trade organizations represented in the National Council for Economics and Labour (CNEL), are signatories to the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL) for the sector applied to the category, and, finally, possess a stable representation within the regional territory with an operational headquarters in Campania for at least three years «to be proven by suitable documentation».

According to the President of the Council of Ministers, this provision introduced excessively stringent selective criteria for the recognition of the representativeness of trade associations, in clear contrast with Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, as it is capable of impacting a «sphere attributable to the protection of competition and the determination of fundamental principles regarding freedom of association and participation in economic activities, reserved to the exclusive competence of the State».

The raising of access thresholds to the institutional consultation and participation system would produce a significant restriction of the plurality of representations, unjustifiably limiting the number of entities admitted to consultation tables and consultation procedures provided for by regional legislation. Such exclusionary effect would determine a compression of associative and trade union pluralism, with discriminatory consequences with respect to entities that, although representative, would remain excluded from the institutional circuit, in violation also of Articles 3 and 39 of the Constitution.

Indeed, the challenged regional provision would introduce criteria of representativeness based on excessively selective and disproportionate requirements which, under the appearance of neutrality, would be capable of producing discriminatory and exclusionary, and thus unreasonable, effects, as affirmed in Judgment No. 156 of 2025 of this Court.

By anchoring the greater representativeness of the trade association to indicators of presumed representativeness consisting of adherence to national trade organizations, as well as the stipulation of a national collective labour agreement for the category, such provision would exclude a pool of entities from the possibility of influencing the regulation of local markets and the representation of economic interests. Furthermore, the requirement of stable representation in the regional territory for a considerable duration would further compress the representation of all other trade associations established for a shorter period.

Ultimately, the Government considers that the aforementioned provision does not merely regulate organizational aspects, but directly regulates the market of representations and business services, altering competitive dynamics and compressing equal access to institutional recognition mechanisms, with a significant restriction of the plurality of representations, in contrast with Articles 3 and 39 of the Constitution, as well as Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution.

2.2.– Similar objections are directed against Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b), numbers 1) and 2), of the same Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which, by amending Article 10 of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, entitled «Technical Assistance Centres», would have further raised the access threshold to the system of representation provided therein.

The amendments made to the aforementioned Article 10 would produce restrictive effects on the participation of business associations in consultation and decision-making processes, as well as on the possibility of establishing technical assistance centres (CATs) recognized by the Region, determining a disproportionate impact on the pluralism of representations and altering the conditions of access to the market for business services and economic representations, in violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, as well as the constitutional principles of equality, pluralism, and freedom of association enshrined in Articles 3 and 39 of the Constitution.

2.3.– The provisions contained in Article 1, paragraph 1, letters c), numbers 1) and 2), g), numbers 1) through 4), h), number 3), and i), number 1), of the same Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 are likewise challenged to the extent that, intervening on various provisions of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, they substitute the prior broad reference to «most representative trade organizations at the regional level» with the formula «associations referred to in Article 6, paragraph 1, letter mbis)», adopting, in their respective amended articles, the new notion of most representative trade association or otherwise adapting to it.

The restrictive criterion introduced by the regional law in question – transposed with reference to various institutional frameworks governed by the Consolidated Act on Commerce – would have the effect of further reducing the plurality of entities admitted to participate in decision-making and in the management of relations with the administration.

In particular, the appellant maintains that the amendment made (by Article 1, paragraph 1, letter c, numbers 1 and 2, of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025) to Article 11 of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, concerning commerce districts, determines an unjustified limitation of the range of trade associations recognized as having the initiative to propose the establishment of said districts and whose prior hearing is provided for, once the implementation criteria for identifying their territorial scope have been defined.

The new regulation on the «[p]romotion of trade associations», set forth in Article 18 of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, as amended by Article 1, paragraph 1, letter g), numbers 1) through 4), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, is challenged to the extent that it provides that: a) only associations possessing the stringent requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1, letter mbis), of the aforementioned Consolidated Act may register in the newly established regional register of trade associations; b) only such associations may be granted contributions for the promotion and realization of institutional purposes; c) therefore, only such associations may submit applications for admission to contributions.

These provisions are also contested as they would imply an unjustified restriction on the entities that may register in the register of most representative trade associations and enjoy contributions for the achievement of their related purposes.

Finally, regarding Article 1, paragraph 1, letter i), number 1), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which amended Article 20, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Act on Commerce concerning municipal interventions for the enhancement of the historic centre, the appellant considers that the transposition of the new definition of most representative trade associations at the regional level, in agreement with which urban street furniture protocols are defined, has limited the range of those called upon to express their opinion in this regard.

In conclusion, all the aforementioned provisions would have introduced a regulation of the representation market capable of impacting the principle of equality and associative pluralism, as well as the overall competitive structure, resulting in a violation of Articles 3, 39, and 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution.

3.– The Campania Region has appeared in the proceedings and requested that the appeal be declared inadmissible and unfounded.

3.1.– The introduction of criteria for identifying the greater representativeness of trade associations, effected by Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, in inserting letter mbis) into paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, does not impair the transversal principles protecting competition, but responds to the need to identify interlocutors endowed with effective representative capacity in consultation and participatory proceedings. Indeed, the challenged provision would not directly impact access to a competitive market in the proper sense, but would be limited to regulating the organization of the regional institutional consultation system, falling within the scope of the regional autonomy of organization and political-administrative direction.

Furthermore, the regional legislature's choice to value stable representativeness over time responds to the need to ensure that institutional representation is entrusted to entities possessing actual roots, organizational continuity, and proven representative capacity. Moreover, such choice would be in line of continuity with solutions already adopted by the State legislature, for example with reference to the renewal procedures of the chamber councils of the Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Handicrafts and Agriculture governed by a ministerial regulation adopted in implementation of State legislation (Decree of the Minister of Economic Development No. 156 of August 4, 2011, entitled «Regulation concerning the designation and appointment of council members and the election of members of the executive board of the chambers of commerce in implementation of Article 12 of Law No. 580 of December 29, 1993, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 23 of February 15, 2010»).

3.2.– Similar considerations are employed to support the unfundedness of the identical objections of violation of Articles 3, 39, and 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, directed against the other provisions of the regional law in question.

In this case, the objections formulated in the appeal are based on the assumption that the intersection of the aforementioned definition of most representative organizations, referred to in letter mbis) of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, with the regulation of technical assistance centres and commerce districts determines an undue restriction of competition.

However, even in these areas, the selection of entities entitled to operate or participate in the related instruments would not impact access to the market of economic activities, nor introduce barriers to the exercise of entrepreneurial initiative. Rather, it would respond to the need to qualify institutional interlocutors and ensure an orderly and functional arrangement of the support and governance mechanisms provided for by regional legislation.

Ultimately, the introduction of letter mbis) in Article 6, paragraph 1, of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020 and the cross-reference made thereto by the other challenged regional provisions aim to regulate aspects pertaining to the exercise of administrative functions concerning commercial activity, attributable to the residual competence vested in the regions pursuant to Article 117, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, and are therefore consistent with the constitutional framework as well as functional to the achievement of the stated purposes of the law.

The Law in Brief

4.– By the appeal indicated in the heading (appeals reg. no. 47 of 2025), the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General's Office, has brought questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding numerous provisions of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which amended the Consolidated Act on Commerce adopted by Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020.

5.– Having reserved for separate rulings the decision on the other questions of constitutional legitimacy brought by the same appeal, those relating to Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3); letter b), numbers 1) and 2); letter c), numbers 1) and 2); letter g), numbers 1) through 4); letter h), number 3), and letter i), number 1), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 are examined herein.

Specifically, the appellant challenges the new definition of «most representative trade associations at the regional level», introduced into Article 6, paragraph 1, letter mbis), of the Consolidated Act on Commerce by effect of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025. By anchoring the greater representativeness of the trade association to presumptive indices consisting of adherence to national trade organizations represented in the CNEL, as well as the stipulation of a national collective labour agreement for the sector applied to the category, in addition to the presence of stable representation in the regional territory for a considerable duration (stable operational headquarters for at least three years), such definition would exclude a pool of entities from the possibility of influencing the regulation of local markets, as well as representing the economic interests of associated businesses, thereby altering competitive dynamics and directly regulating the market of representations and business services, in violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the challenged provision, by introducing representativeness criteria based on excessively selective requirements, would determine a significant restriction of the plurality of entities admitted to institutional dialogue tables and consultation procedures provided for by regional legislation, with discriminatory effects with respect to all those associations that, although representative, would remain excluded from the institutional circuit, in violation of the principle of associative and trade union pluralism and thus of Articles 3 and 39 of the Constitution.

The same objections are directed against the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b), numbers 1) and 2); letter c), numbers 1) and 2); letter g), numbers 1) through 4); letter h), number 3), and letter i), number 1), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025. The transposition of the aforementioned restrictive notion of «most representative trade associations at the regional level», referred to in letter mbis) of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, into the provisions of the same Consolidated Act concerning technical assistance centres (Article 10), commerce districts (Article 11), the municipal intervention instrument for the distribution apparatus (SIAD, pursuant to Article 19), and urban street furniture protocols (Article 20), as well as into the provisions that have set forth the new regulation for the promotion of said trade associations (Article 18), would determine an undue restriction of competition on the market of representation and business services, compressing equal access to institutional recognition mechanisms, with a significant limitation of the plurality of representations, in contrast also with Articles 3 and 39 of the Constitution.

6.– Preliminarily, the questions brought against all the challenged regional provisions in reference to Articles 3 and 39 of the Constitution must be declared inadmissible due to generality and lack of adequate reasoning.

In particular, the appellant emphasizes how Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, in inserting letter mbis) into paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, introducing the definition of «most representative trade associations at the regional level», anchored the greater representativeness of the trade association to four very stringent requirements, which are: the establishment of the association at the regional level; adherence to national trade organizations represented in the CNEL; the subscription to the sector CCNL applied to the category; the presence of an operational headquarters in the regional territory for at least three years. The President of the Council of Ministers denounces these requirements for their aptitude to determine a «significant restriction of the plurality of representations» – a consequence of the allegedly unjustified limitation of the number of entities admitted to consultation tables and consultation procedures provided for by regional legislation – and the related «compression of associative and trade union pluralism, with discriminatory effects with respect to entities that, although representative, remain excluded from the institutional circuit».

However, no argument is spent to explain in light of which paradigm the aforementioned criteria of «presumed» greater representativeness are unreasonably selective or disproportionate, how they determine effects harmful to the principle of pluralism of trade union organizations, whether they produce them jointly or considered individually, or whether they are traceable to one of them, in consideration of the different incidence that can be recognized, respectively, to the requirement of adherence to national organizations represented in the CNEL, the negotiational requirement of subscribing to the sector CCNL applied to the category, or still the requirement of stable representation in the regional territory. Only with regard to this latter criterion does the appellant expressly complain that it, by requiring the association's operation in the regional territory for at least three years, excessively compresses «the representation of all other trade associations established for a shorter period», without, however, reasoning the reasons for such alleged excessiveness. Nor does it provide useful indications to identify which trade associations might be those that, although lacking the aforementioned requirements, possess other characteristics from which representativeness could be inferred, to the point that their exclusion from the possibility of interlocuting with territorial institutions entails the consequent breach of the freedom of trade union association, contemplated by Article 39 of the Constitution.

Supportive argumentation in this regard would have been necessary also considering that, in the present case, the regional provision pertains to the access of employers' trade associations to institutional representation, aimed, as stated, at forms of partnership and in any manner interlocution with territorial administrations in view of the elaboration of the latter's public policies. Precisely with reference to access to institutional representation by employers' associations this Court, albeit in distant times, has recognized that the reference to the notion of «most representative trade union» – moreover already contained in the provisions of the Campania Region's Consolidated Act on Commerce, even if entrusted, as to its precise identification, to resolutions of the Regional Executive – reflects an «organizational principle» reconcilable with the principle of equality under Article 3 of the Constitution, provided that «the law ensures "to all trade union organizations, in the same way, the abstract possibility of being represented [...]"» (Judgment No. 975 of 1988): a circumstance with which today's appellant nevertheless omits to confront itself.

The same objections are then formulated in terms even more concise and merely repetitive of those employed in relation to the aforementioned Article 6, paragraph 1, letter mbis), of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, as amended by Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 against all other provisions of the same Consolidated Act in which the new definition of most representative trade associations at the regional level is inserted. They pertain to the possibility recognized to them to establish technical assistance centres for businesses operating in the sector (Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b, numbers 1 and 2), to their initiative and involvement in the identification of commerce districts (Article 1, paragraph 1, letter c, numbers 1 and 2), to registration in a specific regional register for the purposes of potential application for admission to the allocation of regional contributions for the promotion and realization of the institutional purposes of said associations (Article 1, paragraph 1, letter g, numbers 1 through 4), to involvement in the definition of the municipal intervention instrument for the distribution apparatus (referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, letter h, number 3), as well as in the adoption of specific urban street furniture protocols (Article 1, paragraph 1, letter i, number 1).

In light of constant constitutional case law – according to which the requirement of adequate reasoning supporting the challenge arises in particularly rigorous terms in proceedings brought by way of primary action, where «"the appellant bears the burden not only of identifying the challenged provisions and the constitutional parameters of which it denounces the violation, but also of substantiating the reasons for the alleged contrast with clear, complete and sufficiently articulated arguments (ex multis, Judgments No. 125 of 2023, No. 265, No. 259 and No. 135 of 2022, No. 170 of 2021 and No. 279 of 2020)" (Judgment No. 169 of 2024)» (Judgment No. 93 of 2026; in the same sense also Judgment No. 83 of 2026) –, it must be held that this burden has not been adequately discharged by the appeal under review, with the consequent inadmissibility of the aforementioned questions.

7.– All the cited regional provisions are furthermore challenged in reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution.

The appellant's assumption is that the new definition of «most representative trade associations at the regional level» – introduced into Article 6, paragraph 1, letter mbis), of the Consolidated Act on Commerce and transposed, as stated, by the other challenged provisions (referred to CATs, commerce districts, SIAD, and urban street furniture protocols, as well as access to regional contributions) – is based on excessively restrictive and disproportionate requirements, capable of excluding a significant pool of entities from access to the processes through which guidelines influencing local market regulation and the representation of economic interests are formed. Competitive dynamics would thus be altered and the market of representations and business services would be directly regulated, in violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, which outlines the scope of the protection of competition and «fundamental principles regarding freedom of association and participation in economic activities, reserved to the exclusive competence of the State».

7.1.– Preliminarily, it must be observed that the reasoning provided in support of the alleged impairment of exclusive State legislative competence, although formulated in very concise terms, reaches «"the minimum threshold of clarity and completeness necessary to allow examination on the merits of the promoted question" (among the most recent, Judgments No. 65 and No. 32 of 2025; in the same sense, Judgments No. 133, No. 95 and No. 94 of 2024)» (Judgment No. 57 of 2026). Indeed, it is evident that the appellant contests that the regional legislature introduced a regulation which, although attributable to the exercise of residual competence in the matter of commerce, altered the competitive dynamics inherent to business trade associations, thus invading the sphere of State legislative competence in the matter of protection of competition, albeit understood, in a peculiar acceptation, as including the «determination of fundamental principles regarding freedom of association and participation in economic activities».

7.2.– The questions are unfounded.

In order to verify compliance with the constitutional division of competencies, it is necessary to proceed to identify the matter to which each of the challenged provisions is to be referred, in light of the «ratio, the purpose pursued and its content, omitting consideration of marginal aspects and reflex effects» (Judgment No. 193 of 2022, following constant constitutional case law, most recently reaffirmed by Judgments No. 200, No. 84 and No. 62 of 2025).

Specifically, all the challenged provisions form part of the normative fabric of the regional consolidated act on commerce, originally adopted by the Campania Region with Regional Law No. 7 of 2020. Regarding this Consolidated Act, this Court has already had occasion to state that it «is [...] immediately attributable to the matter of "commerce", therefore, in particular, to Article 117, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution» (Judgment No. 187 of 2022), even if it intersects various exclusive State legislative competencies, such as the protection of the environment and the protection of competition (point 7 of The Law in Brief). Therefore, it must be verified whether the specifically challenged provisions – in particular where they define «most representative trade associations at the regional level» and transpose such definition for the operation of multiple other institutional frameworks – prove to be invasive of the sphere of exclusive State legislative competence in the matter of protection of competition.

From the explanatory report of the regional bill, which subsequently became Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, it appears that the purpose of the amendments made to the Consolidated Act on Commerce by the provisions now examined by this Court was to resolve certain application problems that emerged over the years. Specifically, the circumstance that, in the original formulation of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, the regional provisions referred to the most representative trade associations for the commerce sector at the regional level without specifying their identification criteria (delegated to potential subsequent intervention by the Regional Executive) had created difficulties in relation to numerous cases of institutional involvement of such associations in the definition of sectoral programmatic policies in the territory, with the consequent risk of hindering the implementation of the provisions in question by territorial entities.

More in detail, forms of institutional involvement of such associations are provided for, first of all, with regard to commerce districts, «innovative entities that define scopes and initiatives in which citizens, businesses and freely aggregated social formations are able to make commerce the factor of integration with other productive sectors [...] to increase overall attractiveness, regenerate the urban fabric and support the competitiveness of its commercial poles» (Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Act on Commerce). The establishment of such districts is proposed, in fact, to the Region, «also upon initiative» of the most representative trade associations for the commerce sector at the regional level, and whose territorial scope is identified and defined on the basis of implementation criteria established by the Regional Executive «after hearing» the aforementioned associations (Article 11, paragraph 2, of the same Consolidated Act).

Similarly, it is provided that the SIAD – that is, the «integrated urban planning instrument with exhaustive function of the power of territorial programming and planning for commercial purposes» (Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Consolidated Act on Commerce) – is approved by the municipal council (followed by the compliance visa of the competent regional administrative structure) upon the opinion, mandatory even if non-binding, of consumer associations and the aforementioned most representative trade associations at the regional level (Article 19, paragraph 7). In the same perspective (still within the scope of the SIAD) lies the regulation dictated by Article 20, where – in view of the objective of «preserving, relaunching and enhancing the typical function of commerce in the historic centre and its role as a primary pole and aggregation of social life, through the growth and diversification of commercial activities» – the adoption of «specific urban street furniture protocols» to be defined with the same trade associations for the purpose of protecting the «building heritage of historical and cultural interest» is provided for (Article 20, paragraph 1).

As for the regulation of CATs, i.e., technical assistance, training, and refresher centres in favour of businesses operating in the commerce sector, the challenged regional provision – which moreover allows their establishment, authorized by the Region, also in consortium form, at the provincial level, by «trade associations [...] and other non-profit interested entities that have at least two years of operation at the date of application for regional recognition» (Article 10, paragraph 1) – assigns only to those established by trade associations operating at the national level and with operational headquarters in the territory of the Campania Region with at least two years of activity the task of implementing, on behalf of the Region, the programmes of professional training courses for commerce, no longer only in relation to the food sector, but also the supply of food and beverages (Article 10, paragraph 4).

Finally, within this framework lies also the amended Article 18 of the Consolidated Act on Commerce concerning the «[p]romotion of trade associations», where it establishes the «Regional Register of most representative trade associations at the regional level» in which associations possessing the requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1, letter mbis), of the Consolidated Act on Commerce as amended by the challenged regional provision may register (paragraph 01) and provides that contributions may be granted to them by the Region – after verifying financial availability – in view of the «promotion and realization of their institutional purposes» (paragraph 1).

In light of the content of the individual challenged provisions and the purpose pursued with their amendment – consisting in the «facilitation» of the provvedimental activity of territorial entities in the commerce sector, in cases of institutional involvement of the aforementioned employers' trade associations –, their traceability to the regional residual legislative competence matter of commerce is evident, in harmony with the entire normative fabric of the Consolidated Act. The ratio underlying the provisions under examination is, in fact, that – common to other regional sectoral regulations – of directing regional administrative bodies and local authorities, within the scope of consultation and participatory proceedings inherent to commercial regulation, towards «reliable» and easily identifiable interlocutors, with whom to share public interest tasks considered from time to time, identifying them in representative organizations of categories that are sufficiently rooted in the territory and at the same time endowed with a multilevel structure, to which negotiational title is moreover recognized by their members and the contractual counterpart.

Similar provisions, on the other hand, do not produce effects such as to be invasive of the sphere of exclusive State legislative competence in the matter of protection of competition, notwithstanding the transversal nature of the latter and its consequent aptitude to affect «the regulation of reference markets of multiple and diverse economic activities» (Judgment No. 90 of 2026).

Premised that – according to the now constant orientation of this Court – the matter of the protection of competition includes, alongside legislative measures of protection in the proper sense, «promotional legislative measures, aimed at eliminating limits and constraints on the free unfolding of entrepreneurial capacity and competition between businesses (competition "in the market"), or at prefiguring competitive guarantee procedures ensuring the widest opening of the market to all economic operators (competition "for the market")», with the objective of expanding the «free choice of citizens and businesses, the latter also as recipients, in turn, of goods and services» (Judgment No. 60 of 2026), the challenged regional provisions are extraneous to this sphere.

Indeed, they do not impact competitive dynamics, as they do not place any obstacle to access to the market for businesses operating in the commerce sector, nor do they limit or constrain the free unfolding of entrepreneurial capacity and competition between businesses. Even should some incidence on the activity of the latter be perceived, it would take the form of a mere consequence, entirely indirect, of the non-involvement of business associations operating in the sector not possessing the requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1, letter mbis), of the Consolidated Act on Commerce, in the elaboration of regional or municipal programming acts capable of influencing the structure of the reference regional market. In such case, however, those regional (or potentially local authority) programming acts would be constitutionally illegitimate because they are harmful to competition, should they introduce unjustified barriers to market access for businesses operating in the commerce sector.

As this Court has had occasion to reiterate recently as well, the protection of competition «is not a passepartout capable of justifying the indiscriminate attraction of any legislative intervention to exclusive State competence and the aprioristic exclusion of any regional intervention», provided that the latter «does not impact the competitive structure of markets in terms such as to restrict the free unfolding of entrepreneurial initiatives (most recently, Judgment No. 89 of 2025)» (again Judgment No. 60 of 2026). Precisely by reason of the transversal scope of the promotion of competition, it may well happen that a measure belonging to a regulation established by the regions in matters attributed to their legislative competence, concurrent or residual, reverberates on the protection of competition, provided that such reflection is only marginal or indirect and does not contrast with the objectives of State norms regulating the market, protecting and promoting competition (Judgment No. 62 of 2025). In the case of the challenged regional provisions, moreover, the incidence on competition is not only entirely indirect, but also potential and, as stated, not even demonstrable.

Therefore, all the questions raised in reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution are declared unfounded.

on these grounds

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

reserving for separate rulings the decision on the further questions of constitutional legitimacy brought by the appeal indicated in the heading;

1) declares inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3); letter b), numbers 1) and 2); letter c), numbers 1) and 2); letter g), numbers 1) through 4); letter h), number 3), and letter i), number 1), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of October 16, 2025, entitled «Amendments to Regional Law No. 7 of April 21, 2020 (Consolidated Act on Commerce pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of Campania Region Law No. 11 of October 14, 2015) and further transitional provisions», brought, in reference to Articles 3 and 39 of the Constitution, by the President of the Council of Ministers, with the appeal indicated in the heading;

2) declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a), number 3); letter b), numbers 1) and 2); letter c), numbers 1) and 2); letter g), numbers 1) through 4); letter h), number 3), and letter i), number 1), of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, brought, in reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, 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 23, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed in the Registry on November 5, 2026