JUDGMENT NO. 192
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 1, letter q), numbers 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5), letter aa), number 2), letter cc), number 1), letter ii), numbers 1), 2), 4), 5), 6) and 10), and letter zz) 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 notified 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 Journal of the Republic No. 2, 1st special series, for the year 2026.
Having regard to the appearance entered by the Campania Region;
having heard Judge Rapporteur Marco D’Alberti 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;
having deliberated in chambers on September 23, 2026.
The Facts in Brief
1.– By an appeal notified and filed on December 15, 2025, and registered under No. 47 Reg. Rec. of 2025, the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, brought, inter alia, questions concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter q), numbers 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5), letter aa), number 2), letter cc), number 1), letter ii), numbers 1), 2), 4), 5), 6) and 10), and letter zz) 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».
The questions are set forth in the first, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grounds of appeal, the order of which does not reflect that of the individual challenged provisions. The exposition of the questions shall follow the order of the grounds of appeal.
2.– By the first ground of appeal, the appellant challenges Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), numbers 1), 2), 4), 5), 6) and 10) of Campania Regional Law No. 20 of 2025.
This provision amends the rules governing the allocation of market stalls granted under concession for commercial activities on public land, as set forth in Article 55 of 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).
It provides for the following amendments to Article 55:
"1) in paragraph 1, the word "stall” is replaced by the following: "unallocated stalls” and after the word "municipality” the following are added: "where the stall is located”;
2) after paragraph 1, the following is added:
"1-bis. Prior to transmitting to the regional offices the number of available stalls referred to in paragraph 2 below, Municipalities shall prepare a call for bids for upgrading among operators who are already holders of stall concessions within the market.”;
[…]
4) after paragraph 2, the following is added:
"2-bis. Pending the adoption of the guidelines referred to in Article 11, paragraph 1, of Law 214/2023, selection procedures for the award of stall concessions pursuant to paragraph 6 of Article 11 shall provide for a 25 percent bonus on the assignable score for operators who have not submitted a renewal application, in recognition of the professional expertise acquired through the continuous occupation of the stall over the years. The Municipality may grant the same bonus also to parties who have participated in daily roll-calls, pursuant to Article 59, paragraph 1.”;
5) after paragraph 2, the following is added:
"2-ter. Vacant stalls not communicated to the Region by December 31 of each year may not be occupied, under any title, until such communication has been made to the competent regional body.”;
6) in paragraph 3, after the words "Within forty-five days” the following are added: "from the communication referred to in paragraph 2”;
[…]
10) paragraph 10 is replaced by the following:
"10. Pursuant to Article 11, paragraphs 4 and 5, of Law 214/2023, stall concessions expired as of December 31, 2020, for which a renewal application has been submitted pursuant to Article 54, paragraph 3, of this Law, are extended until December 31, 2032.”».
The appellant observes that letter ii), in the challenged parts, has introduced:
– under number 10), the automatic extension of stall concessions until December 31, 2032;
– under numbers 2) and 4), preferential criteria within selection procedures in favor of operators who already hold concessions;
– under numbers 1), 5) and 6), a series of procedural constraints additional to those previously established for the award of concessions.
This allegedly violates Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution, due to an infringement of the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», in relation to Article 11 of Law No. 214 of December 30, 2023 (Annual Market and Competition Law 2022), a state provision whose invocation, contained in the text of the challenged letter ii), cannot in any event legitimize the intervention of the regional legislature. Indeed, the challenged provision allegedly encroaches upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», insofar as the preferential criteria and automatic renewals provided for therein affect market access by creating barriers to entry.
The appellant also complains of a violation of Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, due to an infringement of constraints deriving from European Union law, invoking as an interposed standard Article 12 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 12, 2006, on services in the internal market (the so-called "Services Directive”).
This interposed standard, which expressly prohibits the automatic renewal of authorizations to provide services and any advantage for the outgoing provider, would also apply to retail sales and commercial activities on public land. By providing for a general and automatic twelve-year renewal of stall concessions expired as of December 31, 2020, as well as preferential criteria for outgoing concessionaires, the challenged provision would manifestly conflict with the invoked Article 12 of the Services Directive, by failing to allow for impartial selection procedures for potential new operators and by conferring a privileged position on those who have already benefited from a concession relationship.
Furthermore, the regional choices would unreasonably curtail the freedom of private economic initiative, in violation of Article 41 of the Constitution, and would interfere, through the imposition of procedural constraints and timeframes, with the autonomy of municipal administrative functions in managing stall concessions, in violation of Article 118 of the Constitution.
3.– By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellant challenges Article 1, paragraph 1, letter q), numbers 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) of Campania Regional Law No. 20 of 2025.
This provision amends the rules governing the issuance of authorizations for large-scale retail structures, as set forth in Article 28 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020.
It provides for the following amendments to Article 28:
"1) in paragraph 3, after the word "index,” the following are added: "in agreement with the competent regional body and”;
2) in paragraph 5, after the words "The convening of the Conference of Services is communicated, concurrently,” the following are added: "to the Region, the Province or the Metropolitan City,”;
3) in paragraph 8, under letter d), the word "previously” is replaced by the following: "originally” and under letter e), the words "except in cases where the sales area of the additional product sector does not exceed 20 percent of the total sales area” are deleted;
4) in paragraph 9, the words "Without prejudice to the applicant’s option to request examination by a conference of services pursuant to Law 241/1990” are deleted;
5) in paragraph 11, letter c) is replaced by the following:
"c) the expansion area does not exceed 70 percent of the sum of the areas decommissioned;”».
The appellant observes that letter q), in the challenged parts:
– requires mandatory concertation with the regional body before the Single Desk for Productive Activities (SUAP) may convene the conference of services to decide on applications for the opening, relocation, and surface expansion of a large-scale retail structure (number 1, amending paragraph 3 of Article 28);
– expands the range of entities (region, province, or metropolitan city) to which the convening of such conference of services must be communicated (number 2, amending paragraph 5 of Article 28 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020);
– eliminates the pre-existing rule under which product sector expansions were not evaluated as new openings of large-scale retail structures if the area occupied by the added product sector did not exceed 20 percent of the total sales area (number 3, amending paragraph 8, letter e) of Article 28);
– eliminates the option previously granted to the economic operator to request examination by a conference of services for authorization applications which, not falling within the list of interventions to be evaluated as new openings of large-scale retail structures, should be examined exclusively by the locally competent SUAP (number 4, amending paragraph 9 of Article 28);
– provides for a new maximum threshold, equal to «70 percent of the sum of the decommissioned areas», upon compliance with which authorization for the surface expansion of large-scale retail structures is always granted (number 5, amending paragraph 11, letter c) of Article 28).
In the appellant’s view, the amendments thus introduced, considered as a whole, make the procedure for the opening, relocation, and surface expansion of large-scale retail structures more rigid and less flexible compared to the pre-existing rules. The Campania legislature has burdened the private applicant and the public administrations involved with additional and supplementary charges, reducing the procedural flexibility previously recognized to the operator and affecting the conditions of market access within the regional territory.
Consequently, Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution is allegedly violated due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition». The challenged provision allegedly conflicts, in particular, with Article 31, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 201 of December 6, 2011 (Urgent provisions for growth, equity, and the consolidation of public finances), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 214 of December 22, 2011, which enshrined the general principle of trade liberalization.
4.– By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant challenges Article 1, paragraph 1, letter aa), number 2) of Campania Regional Law No. 20 of 2025.
This provision inserts a new paragraph 3-bis into Article 38 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, entitled «Price Advertising» (with reference to products displayed to the public).
The new paragraph 3-bis provides: «[f]or reasons of public order, the price of products may be indicated in a specific catalogue made available to customers».
This allegedly violates, first of all, Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of February 16, 1998, on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers.
The regional provision, by allowing product prices to be indicated in a separate catalogue for unspecified reasons of public order, allegedly conflicts with the transparency obligation established by the aforementioned Directive 98/6/EC, and in particular with Article 4, paragraph 1, which provides that «[t]he selling price and the unit price shall be unambiguous, easily identifiable and clearly legible».
This obligation should be interpreted in light of, inter alia, Recital 6 of the Directive, which clarifies that the obligation to indicate the selling price and the unit price contributes significantly to improving consumer information by offering them the simplest optimal means to evaluate and compare product prices and thus enabling them to make informed choices based on simple comparisons. The appellant also invokes Recital 1, which stresses the importance of market transparency and correct information for consumer protection, as well as Recital 12, according to which the directive aims to ensure homogenous and transparent information for the benefit of all consumers within the framework of the internal market.
The challenged provision allegedly violates, furthermore, Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», as it conflicts with the following interposed state rules:
– Article 14 of Legislative Decree No. 114 of March 31, 1998 (Reform of rules relating to the commerce sector, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 4, of Law No. 59 of March 15, 1997), entitled «Price Advertising», according to which «[p]roducts displayed for retail sale in external shop windows or at the entrance of the premises and in the immediate vicinity of the establishment or in public areas or on sales counters, wherever located, must indicate the retail selling price in a clear and easily legible manner, by means of a sign or other suitable means» (paragraph 1);
– Article 15 of Legislative Decree No. 206 of September 6, 2005 (Consumer Code, pursuant to Article 7 of Law No. 229 of July 29, 2003), which transposed Directive 98/6/EC and refers to Article 14 of Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998 «[f]or the methods of indicating the unit price» (paragraph 2).
In the appellant’s view, it can be inferred from this regulatory framework that the indication of the retail selling price must be easily visible in order to ensure its prescribed legibility; consequently, replacing its direct display with a catalogue, by affecting the «immediateness and accessibility of information to the consumer», would alter «market uniformity».
5.– By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellant challenges Article 1, paragraph 1, letter cc), number 1) of Campania Regional Law No. 20 of 2025.
This provision inserts a new paragraph 2-bis into Article 43 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, entitled «End-of-Season Sales».
The text of paragraph 2-bis is as follows:
"[o]n the price tag, in addition to the reduced selling price, it is mandatory to also indicate the lowest price charged for that product in the last thirty days, as well as the percentage discount applied. Perishable, spoiling, or near-expiry products are excluded from the preceding provisions.”.
The appellant complains that the challenged provision excluded «perishable, spoiling, or near-expiry products» from the obligation to indicate, in addition to the reduced selling price, the lowest price charged for that product in the last thirty days, as well as the percentage discount applied.
In particular, the appellant observes that Article 6-bis of Directive 98/6/EC, in addition to laying down rules on price reduction announcements, grants Member States the option to provide otherwise «for goods which are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly» (paragraph 3).
The appellant also observes that Article 17-bis, paragraph 3 of the Consumer Code, through which this option was exercised in the national legal system, limited the exclusion from the obligation to indicate the lowest price charged in the last thirty days strictly to «perishable agricultural and food products referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, letter m), and Article 4, paragraph 5-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8, 2021».
The regional legislature, therefore, allegedly effected a «generalized extension of the categories of excluded goods», despite lacking the power to do so.
This would result, first of all, in a violation of Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to the aforementioned Article 6-bis of Directive 98/6/EC, insofar as the introduction of an unauthorized derogation to Article 17-bis of the Consumer Code would place itself «in conflict [...] with EU law obligations».
Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution would also be violated due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», arising from the ascertained conflict with Article 17-bis, paragraph 3 of the Consumer Code, which does not allow the regional legislature to expand the category of goods excluded from the obligation to indicate the price in accordance with the methods provided for end-of-season sales.
6.– By the eighth ground of appeal, the appellant challenges Article 1, paragraph 1, letter zz) of Campania Regional Law No. 20 of 2025, which replaced Article 68 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020 with the following:
«Art. 68 (Sunday and Holiday Markets)
1. The holding of markets on Sundays is permitted:
a) for extraordinary markets and antiques and collectables markets;
b) for ordinary, seasonal, daily, or neighborhood markets, if already operating on the date of entry into force of this Consolidated Act.
2. The holding of markets of any type is permitted on midweek public holidays».
This provision, by permitting the holding of markets on Sundays for extraordinary markets and those dedicated to antiques and collectables, while excluding second-hand markets provided for under the pre-existing rules, would violate Article 117, first and second paragraphs, letter e) of the Constitution, due to conflict with obligations deriving from the European Union legal order and due to encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition».
The described regulatory choice, by favoring certain operators (antiques and collectables) to the detriment of others (second-hand), would alter the competitive balance between different commercial segments.
Such a choice, even though «formally» falling within the scope of commerce, could not be traced back to a regional legislative competence, as it conflicts with Article 31 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted, and with Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 1 of January 24, 2012 (Urgent provisions for competition, infrastructure development, and competitiveness), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 27 of March 24, 2012, which, by outlining a framework for the liberalization of opening hours and days for commercial establishments, establish a uniform discipline aimed at ensuring conditions of homogenous competition throughout the national territory.
Indeed, consistent constitutional case law has clarified that opening hours, including those of markets and fairs, directly affect market contestability and the freedom of private economic initiative.
7.– The Campania Region entered an appearance in the proceedings by a filing dated January 23, 2026, concluding that the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the appellant are unfounded.
8.– As regards the challenge to Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), numbers 1), 2), 4), 5), 6) and 10), the Region observes that the amendments made to Article 55 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020 are intended to overcome certain operational difficulties encountered over the years and to align regional legislation with subsequent state legislation concerning commerce, in compliance with the interests underlying the State’s «transversal» legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», which, however, cannot extend so far as to suppress residual regional legislative competences.
In particular, the Region observes that the appellant omitted any analysis of the ratio, content, and object of the individual challenged provisions, making generic reference to principles of European derivation and the consequent infringement of the aforementioned exclusive state legislative competence. Nor can an undue curtailment of the administrative autonomy of municipalities in defining calls for bids for the allocation of new concessions be considered to exist, since otherwise the Region would be stripped of any regulatory power in the matter.
The challenged provisions are allegedly limited to regulating the procedures for municipal calls for bids. The «generalized extension» of concessions until 2032, censured by the appellant, is in fact already provided for by current state legislation on the matter, to which the regional legislature refers, both by specifically citing Article 11, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Law No. 214 of 2023, and by establishing, in Article 54, paragraph 3 of the same Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, as amended by Article 1, paragraph 1, letter hh), number 5) of the challenged regional law, that «[r]enewals of concessions are governed by current national legislation».
9.– As regards the challenge to Article 1, paragraph 1, letter q), numbers 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5), the censured amendments to Article 28 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020 regarding large-scale retail structures fall within the scope of the regional residual legislative competence in the matter of commerce.
Concertation with the regional body for convening the conference of services, the identification of the entities to which the communication must be addressed, and the elimination of the applicant’s option to request examination by a conference of services correspond to the need to shorten deadlines and simplify administrative procedures, without rigidities or supplementary burdens on private parties and the public administrations involved.
In particular, the provision requiring concertation with the competent regional body refers solely to the date for convening the conference of services, constituting a substantial simplification of the procedure, especially where the official in charge of the procedure opts to convene the conference directly in simultaneous form and synchronous mode. Furthermore, the measure introduced is aimed at favoring a more orderly workflow for the competent regional body, which might be unable to attend on the date scheduled for the conference meeting.
The expansion of the entities to which the convening of the conference must be communicated cannot in any event entail an increase in burdens for the administration and the proponents, as these are the entities called upon to cast a vote in the conference of services, pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 3 of Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998.
The elimination of the clause concerning product sector expansions of less than 20 percent and the introduction of a maximum threshold of 70 percent for surface expansions must be traced back to purely political and legitimate choices, fully falling within the scope of the regional residual legislative power in the matter of commerce.
The elimination of the applicant’s option to request examination by a conference of services does not represent a significant limitation of the private party’s procedural freedom, but rather renders regional rules consistent with state rules under current Article 14, paragraph 2 of Law No. 241 of August 7, 1990 (New rules on administrative procedure and the right of access to administrative documents), in the text reformulated by Article 1, paragraph 1 of Legislative Decree No. 127 of June 30, 2016 (Rules for the reorganization of rules regarding the conference of services, implementing Article 2 of Law No. 124 of August 7, 2015), according to which «[t]he decisory conference of services is always convened by the proceeding administration when the positive conclusion of the procedure is subject to acquiring multiple opinions, agreements, concertations, clearances or other acts of consent, however denominated, issued by different administrations, including managers of public goods or services».
10.– As regards the challenge to Article 1, paragraph 1, letters aa), number 2), cc), number 1), and zz), the Region observes first of all that Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998, invoked by the appellant «with reference to par. 1, lett. cc [correctly: letter aa), number 2)]», became subordinate (cedevole) following the reform of Title V, Part II of the Constitution and the consequent attribution to the regions of residual legislative power in the matter of commerce, to which the challenged provisions are attributable.
Consequently, such legislative decree would apply only in regions lacking their own regulations on the matter, as consistently affirmed by this Court.
Therefore, it does not apply in the Campania Region, which enacted specific rules on price advertising precisely in Article 38 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, which is the subject of amendment; furthermore, paragraph 4 of this latter provision expressly safeguards the current provisions of the Consumer Code under Legislative Decree No. 206 of 2005, which was also invoked by the appellant with reference to both letter cc) and letter zz).
The Region also observes that the challenged letter aa), by providing, through the introduction of paragraph 3-bis into Article 38 of the challenged regional law, that «[f]or reasons of public order, the price of products may be indicated in a specific catalogue made available to customers», introduces an additional method for displaying prices without negatively affecting the transparency obligations already provided for by national and regional regulations. On the contrary, it expands the possibilities for informing the consumer, balancing public order requirements with customer protection needs.
For the aforementioned reasons, the censuses raised against letter cc), number 1), the content of which is in any event consistent with Article 17-bis of the Consumer Code, also prove to be unfounded, as the challenged provision falls within the sphere of regional legislative power in the matter of commerce.
Identical considerations apply to letter zz), which, moreover, does not limit the opening hours and closing days of commercial activities, but specifies particular hypotheses in which the holding of markets on Sundays is permitted, «in compliance with state regulations». Limitations on «market activities» on public holidays for constitutional reasons, such as the protection of health, workers, the environment, and cultural heritage, as well as the safeguarding of security and urban decorum, remain within the prerogative of the municipality concerned within its own territory.
11.– The President of the Council of Ministers filed a supplementary brief on September 2, 2026, in which he replied to the Region’s defense arguments.
As regards the challenge to Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), numbers 1), 2), 4), 5), 6) and 10) of Campania Regional Law No. 20 of 2025, the appellant first reconstructs the relevant regulatory framework, also with regard to the guidelines adopted, in implementation of Article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Law No. 214 of 2023, by Decree of the Minister of Enterprises and Made in Italy of June 5, 2026 (Adoption of Guidelines for the issuance of stall concessions for commercial activities on public land, pursuant to Article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Law No. 214 of December 30, 2023).
Secondly, the appellant reiterates that the challenged regional provisions, contrary to what is claimed by the Campania Region, directly affect the competitive structure of concessions for commercial activities on public land and, specifically, market access.
Regional intervention cannot be justified by operational difficulties encountered over the years and the need for adaptation with respect to subsequent state trade regulations, given that Law No. 214 of 2023 itself, in Article 11, paragraph 2, is aimed at balancing, as specified by the aforementioned guidelines, «the requirements of opening market areas to the principles of full competition with those aimed at ensuring the quality of commercial offerings and local socioeconomic aspects» (point 2).
As regards violations of European Union law, the conflict between the challenged regional rules and Article 12 of Directive 2006/123/EC, which expressly prohibits automatic renewals and any advantage granted to the outgoing provider, is evident.
With reference to the further grievances, the state appeal clearly illustrates the reasons why there is a curtailment of the freedom of economic initiative guaranteed by Article 41 of the Constitution and an interference with the autonomy of municipal administrative functions pursuant to Article 118 of the Constitution.
As regards the former, preferential criteria and renewals in favor of incumbents constitute «tools capable of restricting potential market access» and create «barriers to entry», without considering that a uniform discipline on this point has been established by the aforementioned ministerial guidelines, in implementation of Article 11, paragraph 2 of Law No. 214 of 2023.
The measures introduced by the Campania Region are capable of hindering the free movement of persons and goods within the national territory, as they would limit citizens’ right to exercise their activity in any part of the national territory, erecting protectionist obstacles to the provision of services by operators located in other parts of the national territory or the European Union.
Regarding the violation of Article 118 of the Constitution, the regional legislature limited local authorities’ discretion in managing stall concessions by introducing procedural constraints and timeframes that differ from and are additional to those prescribed by the aforementioned guidelines.
The intention is not to curtail the administrative autonomy of municipalities, as the Region claims, but rather to «allow each local authority to operate in compliance with homogenous and certain criteria capable of ensuring uniformity in calls for bids for issuing concessions for activities on public land».
As regards the challenge to Article 1, paragraph 1, letter q), numbers 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5), the innovations introduced by the regional legislature do not entail the reduction and simplification of administrative procedures, but significantly rigidify the authorization process for large-scale retail structures, increasing the burdens on private parties and the administrations involved, while also reducing the spaces for procedural flexibility previously recognized to operators. Furthermore, they affect the conditions of access and development of economic activity, with a consequent impact on the competitive profile and the ways in which municipalities exercise their administrative functions.
Regarding the challenge to Article 1, paragraph 1, letters aa), number 2) and cc), number 1), the subordinate character of Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998 is not decisive. Firstly, because the appeal also invokes additional state provisions under Articles 15 and 17-bis of the Consumer Code. Secondly, specifically with regard to letter aa), number 2), because the aforementioned Article 15 contains a «static» reference to the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998.
With specific reference to the challenge to letter cc), number 1), regarding reduced-price sales, residual legislative power in the matter of commerce cannot extend to the point of excluding the obligation, established by state rules constituting a fundamental principle, to provide, in addition to the reduced selling price, the lowest price charged for that product in the last thirty days and the percentage discount applied. Indeed, the regional legislature lacks the power to expand the categories of excluded goods, which national rules expressly limited solely to perishable agricultural and food products.
As regards the challenge to Article 1, paragraph 1, letter zz), this provision limits the regulation of Sunday and holiday markets by providing for the holding only of extraordinary markets and those dedicated to antiques and collectables, to the exclusion of second-hand markets. This is not a mere clarification in compliance with state rules, but a generalized limitation concerning the holding of Sunday and holiday markets, which is out of line with the state regulatory framework concerning the liberalization of opening and closing hours and days for commercial establishments. The regional choice thus conflicts with the freedom to open new commercial establishments in the territory without quotas, territorial limits, or other constraints of any kind whatsoever.
The justifications provided by the Region—according to which the limitations introduced are attributable to constitutional reasons such as the protection of health, workers, the environment, and cultural heritage, as well as the safeguarding of security and urban decorum, falling within municipal prerogatives—do not hold up. Indeed, the challenged provision neither reproduces the wording of Article 31, paragraph 2 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted, which safeguards limitations connected to the aforementioned reasons, nor attributes such limiting power to municipalities in compliance with the aforementioned Article 31, paragraph 2.
Points of Law
12.– By the appeal indicated in the heading (Rec. Rec. No. 47 of 2025), the President of the Council of Ministers challenged various provisions of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025.
Reserving for separate judgments the decision on the other questions of constitutional legitimacy brought by the same appeal, the Court now examines, following the order of the grounds of appeal, those concerning Article 1, paragraph 1, letters ii), numbers 1), 2), 4), 5), 6) and 10), q), numbers 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5), aa), number 2), cc), number 1), and zz).
13.– Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 introduces amendments to the rules governing the allocation of market stalls granted under concession for commercial activities on public land, as set forth in Article 55 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020.
The appellant complains that numbers 1), 2), 4), 5), 6) and 10) of letter ii), by providing for the automatic extension of concessions until December 31, 2032 (number 10), selective preferential mechanisms in favor of operators who already hold concessions (numbers 2 and 4), and a series of procedural constraints additional to those previously established (numbers 1, 5 and 6), violate Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to Article 12 of Directive 2006/123/EC, insofar as the generalized and automatic renewal of concessions does not allow for the activation of impartial selection procedures for potential new operators, conferring a privileged position on those who have already benefited from a concession relationship.
Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution is also allegedly violated, in relation to Article 11 of Law No. 214 of 2023, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», as the preferential criteria and automatic renewals provided for by the regional legislature affect market access by creating barriers to entry.
Finally, there is an alleged violation of Articles 41 and 118 of the Constitution, due to the unreasonable curtailment of the freedom of private economic initiative and interference with the autonomy of municipal administrative functions in managing stall concessions.
14.– Preliminarily, it must be clarified that the grievance alleging violation of the autonomy guaranteed to municipalities by Article 118 of the Constitution refers exclusively to numbers 1), 5) and 6) of letter ii) of Article 1, paragraph 1 of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, as this constitutional standard is not relevant to the provisions contained in the other numbers of the same letter ii) that are challenged.
Having established this, the questions concerning the aforementioned numbers 1), 5) and 6) are ruled inadmissible due to a lack of adequate reasoning, with reference to all invoked standards.
Number 1) amends paragraph 1 of Article 55 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020 by replacing the word "stall” with the words "unallocated stalls” and adding the words "where the stall is located” after the word "municipality”. Consequently, paragraph 1 of Article 55 now provides that «[f]or the purpose of issuing concessions for unallocated stalls in markets, fairs, or outside markets, the municipality where the stall is located shall prepare specific calls for bids».
Number 5) inserts new paragraph 2-ter into Article 55, according to which «[v]acant stalls not communicated to the Region by December 31 of each year may not be occupied, under any title, until such communication has been made to the competent regional body».
Number 6) amends paragraph 3 of Article 55 by adding, after the words "Within forty-five days,” the words "from the communication referred to in paragraph 2”. Consequently, paragraph 3 of Article 55 now provides that «[w]ithin forty-five days from the communication referred to in paragraph 2 [id est: from the communication by which municipalities where stalls are located transmit to the competent regional body, by July 30 of each year, the number of stalls that have become available or are not yet allocated], the Region shall publish in the Official Bulletin of the Campania Region the list of available stalls, as well as the model call for bids to which municipalities shall conform».
The appellant, as seen, asserts that the regional legislature thus introduced a series of procedural constraints additional to those previously established, but, apart from failing to clarify what such constraints—which are difficult to identify—consist of, offers no argument in support of the alleged conflict with the invoked constitutional standards.
In so doing, the appellant has failed to fulfill the «burden (to be considered even more stringent than that existing in incidental proceedings [...]) of setting forth clear and adequate reasoning regarding the specific reasons that would cause the violation of the standards it assumes to be infringed» (among many, Judgments No. 100 of 2026, No. 76 and No. 59 of 2023; in the same sense, Judgments No. 196, No. 126 and No. 106 of 2025, No. 68 of 2024).
Therefore, all questions concerning the challenged numbers 1), 5) and 6) of letter ii) of Article 1, paragraph 1 of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 must be declared inadmissible.
15.– Moving on to examine on the merits the questions concerning numbers 2), 4) and 10) of the same letter ii), it must first of all be specified that, according to consistent constitutional case law, checking the compliance of the challenged rule with internal competence rules is preliminary to reviewing compliance with European Union law (Judgments No. 49 of 2014, No. 245 of 2013 and No. 127 of 2010; in the same sense, Judgment No. 4 of 2022, which states that «the grievance concerning the division of competence has priority, from a logical-legal perspective, over the other, which addresses the content of the legislative choice»).
Priority must therefore be given to examining the question raised with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution.
16.– Before illustrating the individual solutions relating to numbers 2), 4) and 10) of letter ii), the general relevant regulatory and case-law framework must be reconstructed.
Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 amends the consolidated act on commerce set forth in Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, drafted pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1 of Campania Region Law No. 11 of October 14, 2015 (Urgent measures to simplify, rationalize, and make the administrative apparatus more efficient, improve citizen services, and encourage business activity. Annual Simplification Law 2015).
The commercial activities governed by the aforementioned consolidated act are retail, wholesale, and public-land commerce, the supply of food and beverages, the sale of daily and periodical press, and the distribution of motor fuels.
Following the reform of Title V, Part II of the Constitution, ordinary regions acquired residual legislative competence in the matter of commerce, pursuant to Article 117, fourth paragraph of the Constitution (to this effect, Judgment No. 210 of 2024, which cites Judgments No. 187 of 2022, No. 195 and No. 164 of 2019). Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020 is therefore directly attributable to this residual legislative competence (to this effect, Judgment No. 187 of 2022).
However, competence over commerce intersects exclusive state competences in "goal-oriented” and "transversal” matters, such as «protection of competition» under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution, which lacks a certain or delimited extension and is therefore «capable of influencing even matters attributed to the legislative competence, whether concurrent or residual, of the regions (Judgments No. 80 of 2006, No. 175 of 2005, No. 272 and No. 14 of 2004)» (among many, Judgment No. 134 of 2021).
In this case, it must therefore be verified whether the challenged provisions, notwithstanding their inherent connection to the regulation of commerce, nonetheless infringe upon the exclusive legislative competence attributed to the State by Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution, having introduced measures potentially restrictive of competition.
In this regard, assistance is provided by the constitutional case law formed with regard to the analogous topic of maritime state-owned property concessions for tourism and recreational use.
This Court has consistently affirmed that «the rules concerning concessions on state-owned property affect various material areas, some of which pertain to regional legislative competences. However, provisions that provide for ex lege extensions or automatic renewals of concession relationships, or in any event affect their duration, necessarily bring into play as a paramount matter the protection of competition, which falls within exclusive state competence pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution, and stands as an insuperable limit with respect to the regional competences with which it interferes (Judgments No. 10 of 2021, No. 1 of 2019, No. 171 of 2013 and No. 213 of 2011)» (Judgment No. 46 of 2022).
Consequently, «in regulating the granting in concession of such state-owned goods, regional legislation [...] is destined to yield to the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of protection of competition whenever the object of the regulation ends up influencing the methods for selecting the contractor, where it impacts the competitive structure of markets in such terms as to restrict the free unfolding of entrepreneurial initiatives» (Judgment No. 221 of 2018), «hindering the entry of other potential economic operators into the relevant market» (Judgment No. 139 of 2021).
In particular, regional rules providing for mechanisms of extension or automatic renewal of concessions (Judgments No. 139 and No. 10 of 2021, No. 1 of 2019 and No. 171 of 2013), establishing an excessive duration of the concession relationship (again, Judgment No. 1 of 2019, as well as Judgment No. 109 of 2018), or granting preference to the outgoing concessionaire upon renewal (Judgments No. 221 of 2018 and No. 40 of 2017) have been deemed invasive of such state legislative competence.
17.– As regards Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), number 10), which replaces paragraph 10 of Article 55 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020 and with which it is convenient to begin the examination, the question brought with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution is well-founded.
By this provision, the regional legislature, in establishing that «stall concessions expired as of December 31, 2020, for which a renewal application has been submitted pursuant to Article 54, paragraph 3 of this Law, are extended until December 31, 2032», specified that the extension is introduced «[p]ursuant to Article 11, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Law 214/2023».
To better understand the meaning of this regulatory reference, it should be recalled that Article 181, paragraph 4-bis of Decree-Law No. 34 of May 19, 2020 (Urgent measures regarding health, labor and economic support, as well as social policies connected to the COVID-19 epidemiological emergency), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 77 of July 17, 2020, had provided for the renewal «for a duration of twelve years», and thus until December 31, 2032, of «stall concessions for commercial activities on public land expiring by December 31, 2020».
Article 11 of Law No. 214 of 2023, in paragraphs 4 and 5, while regulating the allocation procedures for concessions for commerce on public land, preserved the renewal already provided up to December 31, 2032 by Article 181, paragraph 4-bis of Decree-Law No. 34 of 2020, as converted.
The challenged Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), number 10) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 has therefore substantially reproduced, for what is relevant here, the state legislation governing the matter. The regional defense itself, moreover, argues that the challenged rule intended to conform to subsequent state provisions.
In this regard, it is observed that, according to consistent constitutional case law, «in matters of exclusive state competence, such as that under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution, "regulatory interventions by Regions directed at affecting the discipline enacted by the State are inhibited, even if merely reproductive thereof (Judgment No. 245 of 2013, which cites Judgments No. 18 of 2013, No. 271 of 2009, No. 153 and No. 29 of 2006)”» (Judgment No. 40 of 2017, concerning a regional provision establishing, for all existing maritime state-owned property concessions, an expiration date equal to that set by the state legislature upon extension). On that same occasion, this Court specified that «the novation of the source, with intrusion into areas of exclusive state competence, constitutes a cause of constitutional illegitimacy of the regional rule (Judgment No. 35 of 2011), deriving not from the manner in which it legislated, but from the very fact of having legislated in a matter of exclusive state legislative competence (Judgment No. 18 of 2013)» (again, Judgment No. 40 of 2017).
This approach has also been expressed with specific regard to stall concessions for commercial activities on public land.
In addition to the aforementioned Judgment No. 245 of 2013 (rendered on a regional provision establishing criteria for stall allocation), Judgment No. 98 of 2013 ruled in the same sense. It declared the constitutional illegitimacy of a regional provision textually reproducing the (then in force) Article 70, paragraph 5 of Legislative Decree No. 59 of March 26, 2010 (Implementation of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market), which, with reference to retail trade on public land, allowed derogation from the obligation to adopt selection procedures among potential candidates for stall allocation—an obligation established generally by Article 16 of the same Legislative Decree No. 59 of 2010. This Court stated that «[t]he challenged regional rule [...], besides being pleonastic, conflicts with the principle [...] according to which, in the presence of a matter attributed to the exclusive competence of the State, Regions are inhibited from even reproducing the state rule (Judgments No. 18 of 2013, No. 271 of 2009, No. 153 and No. 29 of 2006); a statement that in this case is also extensible with respect to the rules for the protection of competition [...]. Indeed, with respect to the challenged rule, the formal criterion excluding the possibility of novation of the source by the Region derives precisely from the Region’s lack of competence to regulate a matter certainly ascribable to the protection of competition».
In light of these principles, it must be considered that Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), number 10) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 has also incurred a violation of the prohibition against the novation of the state source, which the appellant implicitly deduced by challenging the encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence.
Indeed, there is no doubt that the rules concerning the determination of the duration of stall concessions for commercial activities on public land are attributable to the matter «protection of competition». It is sufficient to recall, on this point, the constitutional case law on automatic extensions of maritime state-owned property concessions (supra, point 16).
As seen, the regional provision substantially reproduced the state legislation providing for the automatic renewal until December 31, 2032 of concessions expired as of December 31, 2020 (Article 181, paragraph 4-bis of Decree-Law No. 34 of 2020, as converted, and Article 11, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Law No. 214 of 2023). An instance of novation of the source thus occurred, with intrusion into areas of exclusive state competence, which constitutes a cause of constitutional illegitimacy of the regional rule.
The constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), number 10) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which replaced Article 55, paragraph 10 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, must therefore be declared for violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution.
The further grounds of challenge are absorbed.
18.– As regards numbers 2) and 4) of the challenged letter ii), which can be examined jointly, the question brought with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution is likewise well-founded.
Number 2) inserts paragraph 1-bis into Article 55 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, which establishes: «[p]rior to transmitting to the regional offices the number of available stalls [...], Municipalities shall prepare a call for bids for upgrading among operators who are already holders of stall concessions within the market». A "call for bids for upgrading” means a procedure whereby municipalities permit commercial operators who already hold a stall concession within the same market to change their location and choose another space that has become vacant.
Number 4) introduces paragraph 2-bis into the same Article 55, which, «[p]ending the adoption of的大 guidelines referred to in Article 11, paragraph 1 of Law 214/2023», grants «operators who have not submitted a renewal application» for the concession a bonus equal to «25 percent of the assignable score». The provision also provides that the same bonus may be granted, upon evaluation by municipalities, «also to parties who have participated in daily roll-calls» (where "daily roll-calls” means procedures through which, «limited to the market day, a stall occasionally left vacant due to the absence of the holder or one not yet allocated is assigned»: Article 52, paragraph 1, letter n) of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020).
There is no doubt that these provisions are also attributable to the matter «protection of competition», which falls under exclusive state legislative competence.
With regard to number 4), reference must be made to the constitutional case law that addressed preferential criteria for evaluating competitors in relation to the analogous, already mentioned case of maritime state-owned property concessions for tourism and recreational use.
This Court has stated that regional provisions introducing such criteria (in that case, a rule assigning additional points to «micro, small, or medium seaside tourism operators»), by impacting fundamental aspects of award procedures, «evidently interfer[e] with the competitive structure of the market for seaside concessions, "restrict[ing] the free unfolding of entrepreneurial initiatives” (Judgment No. 109 of 2018, cited by Judgments No. 161 of 2020 and No. 221 of 2018), in violation of the state’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of protection of competition» (thus, recently, Judgment No. 89 of 2025).
The same considerations apply to provisions that, like the one at hand, directly affect the competitive structure of the market for stall concessions for commercial activities on public land.
It is not relevant, to the contrary, that the challenged Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), number 4) was introduced «[p]ending the adoption of the guidelines referred to in Article 11, paragraph 1 of Law 214/2023». Pending such guidelines (meanwhile adopted by Ministerial Decree of June 5, 2026), the regional legislature lacked the power to intervene in a matter nonetheless reserved to exclusive state legislative competence, the exercise of which is expressed in the aforementioned Article 11, paragraph 1 of Law No. 214 of 2023.
As regards upgrading calls for bids, a provision such as the one contained in number 2) of letter ii) is capable of favoring the category of «operators who are already holders of stall concessions within the market», with respect to stalls that have become available or are not yet allocated, which are thereby removed from selection procedures open to all potential candidates. Indeed, these latter procedures would be activated only in the absence of prior allocation to the aforementioned operators, who are the only ones entitled to participate in upgrading calls for bids.
This regional provision also affects fundamental aspects of award procedures, with consequent interference with the competitive structure of the relevant market.
In conclusion, the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), numbers 2) and 4) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which inserted paragraphs 1-bis and 2-bis of Article 55 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, must be declared for violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution.
The further grounds of challenge are absorbed.
19.– Article 1, paragraph 1, letter q), numbers 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 amends the rules governing authorization for the opening, relocation, and expansion of large-scale retail structures, as set forth in Article 28 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020.
Number 1), modifying paragraph 3 of the indicated Article 28, provides that the SUAP shall convene the conference of services to decide on the authorization application «in agreement with the competent regional body».
Number 2), modifying paragraph 5 of the indicated Article 28, expands the range of entities to which the convening of such conference must be concurrently communicated, adding «the Region, the Province, or the Metropolitan City».
Number 3), modifying paragraph 8, letters d) and e) of the indicated Article 28, eliminates in particular the pre-existing rule under which product sector expansions were not evaluated as new openings of large-scale retail structures if the area occupied by the added product sector did not exceed 20 percent of the total sales area.
Number 4), modifying paragraph 9 of the indicated Article 28, eliminates the option previously granted to the economic operator to request examination by a conference of services for authorization applications which, not falling within the list of interventions to be evaluated as new openings of large-scale retail structures, should be examined exclusively by the locally competent SUAP.
Number 5), modifying paragraph 11, letter c) of the indicated Article 28, introduces a new maximum threshold, equal to «70 percent of the sum of the decommissioned areas», upon compliance with which authorization for the surface expansion of large-scale retail structures is always granted.
According to the appellant, Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution is violated, in relation to Article 31, paragraph 2 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», as the regional legislature introduced aggravated and supplementary burdens on private parties and public administrations involved, reducing the spaces for procedural flexibility previously recognized to operators and consequently affecting market access conditions within the regional territory.
20.– Before illustrating the individual solutions, the relevant regulatory and case-law framework must be reconstructed.
The appellant indicates as an interposed rule, expressing the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», Article 31 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted, which in paragraph 2 enshrines the principle of liberalization of commercial activities, establishing that «the freedom to open new commercial establishments in the territory without quotas, territorial limits, or other constraints of any kind whatsoever constitutes a general principle of the national legal order».
Constitutional case law has consistently traced the aforementioned Article 31, paragraph 2 to the material scope of «protection of competition», including when reviewing regional rules affecting the regulation of authorizations for large-scale retail structures.
In particular, this Court «has already had occasion to state that this provision, "besides implementing a principle of liberalization, by removing constraints and limits on the methods of exercising economic activities for the benefit of consumers, favors the creation of a more dynamic market that is more open to the entry of new operators and broadens the consumer’s choice possibilities” (Judgment No. 98 of 2017). It therefore, insofar as it dictates measures aimed at "ensuring the competitive structure of the relevant market concerning commercial distribution (Judgment No. 104 of 2014, which reiterates Judgments No. 38 of 2013 and No. 299 of 2012)” (again Judgment No. 98 of 2017), must be traced back to the scope of the State’s exclusive legislative competence under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution in the matter of "protection of competition”. The latter constitutes a limit also to regional residual competence in the matter of commerce (Judgment No. 239 of 2016)» (Judgment No. 125 of 2021, rendered on a regional provision that had ordered the temporary suspension of submitting applications for issuing authorizations relating to large-scale retail structures).
Due to the violation of this limit, various rules enacted by regional legislatures placing «constraints on the free unfolding of entrepreneurial activity in the commercial sector» (Judgment No. 299 of 2012) have been declared constitutionally illegitimate, such as those that introduced procedural burdens exclusively for certain operators in the sector, such as holders of large-scale retail structures, regarding the issuance of authorizations necessary for opening establishments, relocating, or expanding surfaces (Judgment No. 165 of 2014, rendered on regional provisions that, inter alia, aggravated documentary production burdens on applicants to the SUAP to open, expand, or relocate a large-scale retail structure).
This Court has also stated that any need to balance trade liberalization with other public interests «must always be understood in a systemic, comprehensive and non-fragmented sense (Judgments No. 85 of 2013 and No. 264 of 2012), as the outcome of a balancing act that must be performed by the entity competent in the matters involved—which in this case pertain to areas of state competence—bearing in mind that the protection of competition, given its transversal nature, assumes a paramount character and thus acts as a limit to the rules that Regions may enact pursuant to their competence in commerce (Judgments No. 38 of 2013 and No. 299 of 2012) or in other matters» (again Judgment No. 165 of 2014).
Ultimately, «it belongs exclusively to the State, in the exercise of its competence pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution, to define at the legislative level the point of equilibrium between the protection of competition and the protection of other public interests interfering with it (among many, Judgments No. 56 of 2020 and No. 30 of 2016)» (thus, recently, Judgment No. 80 of 2025).
21.– As regards numbers 1) and 2) of letter q), which can be examined jointly, the question is not well-founded.
The scope of the challenged provisions must be clarified first of all.
Number 1) amends, in particular, paragraph 3 of Article 28 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020. Prior to the amendment, paragraph 3 provided that the SUAP should convene the decisory conference of services on applications for the opening, relocation, and surface expansion of a large-scale retail structure. Challenged number 1) establishes that the SUAP shall convene the conference of services «in agreement with the competent regional body», with the rest remaining unchanged.
Number 2) of the same letter q) amends paragraph 5 of the indicated Article 28. Prior to the amendment, paragraph 5 provided that the convening of the aforementioned conference of services should be concurrently communicated to neighboring municipalities and the most representative consumer and business organizations in relation to the catchment area of the establishment concerned, for the formulation of any observations. Challenged number 2) provides that such communication shall also be made «to the Region, the Province, or the Metropolitan City», with the rest remaining unchanged.
The mandated concertation with the competent regional body referred to in number 1) can be interpreted, as the Region suggests, in the sense that the concertation must concern not the an of convening the conference of services, but its date, in order to allow for the orderly workflow of the aforementioned regional body, as can also be inferred from the rules on conferences of services contained in Law No. 241 of 1990 (Articles 14 et seq.).
The other administrations to which the convening of the conference must be communicated pursuant to number 2) already appear among the participants in the procedure with voting rights, as the respondent Region further observes.
These regional provisions do not introduce additional burdens—of a documentary nature or otherwise—for the applicant, nor do they introduce supplementary procedural burdens for the SUAP such as to reduce or even hinder market access for holders of large-scale retail structures, in violation of the principle of trade liberalization under Article 31, paragraph 2 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted.
22.– As regards numbers 3) and 4) of letter q), the question is likewise not well-founded.
Number 3) amends paragraph 8, letters d) and e) of Article 28 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020.
Paragraph 8 lists the cases in which authorization applications, even if concretely concerning the expansion of a pre-existing structure, are nevertheless evaluated as new openings of large-scale retail structures, to be examined in a conference of services.
Although the challenge indiscriminately targets the amendments introduced by number 3) of letter q) into the aforementioned paragraph 8 of Article 28, it can be inferred from the grounds of the appeal that the question concerns only the amendment made to letter e) of the same paragraph 8.
Prior to it, letter e) contemplated, among the cases where an authorization application must be evaluated as a new opening of a large-scale retail structure, also that of «adding a product sector previously not authorized, except in cases where the sales area of the additional product sector [did] not exceed twenty percent of the total sales area». In this latter hypothesis, the authorization application was examined exclusively by the SUAP pursuant to paragraph 9 of the same Article 28. Number 3) of letter q) eliminated this exception, with the consequence that all additions of goods belonging to a previously unauthorized sector are now considered new openings of large-scale retail structures, to be examined in a conference of services.
Number 4) of letter q) amends the aforementioned paragraph 9 of Article 28 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020.
Paragraph 9 provides that «[a]pplications for authorizations for large-scale retail structures that do not fall within the list referred to in paragraph 8 shall be examined exclusively by the locally competent SUAP [...]». Prior to the amendment, paragraph 9 also provided that, however, «[w]ithout prejudice to the applicant’s option to request examination by a Conference of services pursuant to Law 241/1990». Number 4) of letter q) eliminated this option, with the consequence that all applications not falling within the list referred to in paragraph 8 of Article 28 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020 are now examined exclusively by the SUAP.
This being said, it is true that the challenged provisions repealed previous favorable regional rules. In the first case, to the benefit of holders of large-scale retail structures who, in compliance with the described limit of 20 percent of the total sales area, intended to add new goods not included in the previous authorization. In the second case, to the benefit of the same holders who intended in any event to submit the application for examination by the conference of services.
However, these interventions had as their object measures previously discretionarily introduced by the regional legislature, as they were attributable to its residual competence in the matter of commerce, in the absence of specific reference state rules. The power to revoke them must therefore be recognized to the same legislature, in the exercise of the same competence, following a renewed balancing of interests reserved to it, without encroaching upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of protection of competition.
Reference must be made in this regard to consistent constitutional case law according to which «"reference to the protection of competition cannot be considered so pervasive as to prevent Regions, in the matter, from having any scope of intervention expressing a correlated competence” (Judgment No. 161 of 2020), provided that regional rules do not influence "the methods for selecting the contractor” and do not impact "the competitive structure of markets in such terms as to restrict the free unfolding of entrepreneurial initiatives” (Judgment No. 109 of 2018)» (Judgment No. 89 of 2025; in the same sense, recently, Judgment No. 60 of 2026, where it is specified that the transversal matrix of the protection of competition «is not a pass-key capable of justifying the indiscriminate attraction of every legislative intervention to exclusive state competence and the aprioristic exclusion of any regional intervention. If it were not so, its very transversal matrix would lapse, ending up consuming regional competences, moreover in an unnamed series of material scopes»).
Ultimately, the challenged provisions do not infringe upon the principle of trade liberalization and do not represent an effective obstacle to free competition within the territory of the Campania Region.
23.– As regards number 5) of letter q), the question is not well-founded for reasons similar to those just set forth.
Number 5) amends paragraph 11, letter c) of Article 28 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, regarding the expansion of large-scale retail structures.
Paragraph 11 sets forth the conditions upon the occurrence of which «[a]uthorization for the expansion of a large-scale retail structure is always granted, in compliance with SIAD location choices, and is effected by means of the SCIA».
Originally, letter c) of paragraph 11 contemplated the condition that «the sum of decommissioned areas [was] equal to at least 70 percent of the sales area of the new structure or the expansion area».
Number 5) of letter q) provides, in place of the previous one, the different and more restrictive condition that «the expansion area [is] not greater than 70 percent of the sum of decommissioned areas».
This modification of a regional rule, implemented through a provision less favorable than the previous one for holders of large-scale retail structures intending to expand them, is an expression of regional residual legislative competence in the matter of commerce, in the exercise of which the earlier measure had been adopted. This latter measure could be discretionarily modified by the regional legislature, exercising the same competence, following a renewed balancing of interests reserved to it.
Consequently, the new dimensional threshold capable of always securing authorization for product sector expansion does not infringe the principle of trade liberalization and does not represent an effective obstacle to free competition within the regional territory.
24.– Article 1, paragraph 1, letter aa), number 2) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 inserts new paragraph 3-bis into Article 38 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, entitled «Price Advertising», which provides that «[f]or reasons of public order, the price of products may be indicated in a specific catalogue made available to customers».
This provision allegedly violates Article 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, in relation to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Directive 98/6/EC, as the provision allowing product prices to be indicated in a separate catalogue for unspecified reasons of public order conflicts with the transparency obligation deriving from the aforementioned directive, Article 4, paragraph 1 of which establishes that «[t]he selling price and the unit price shall be unambiguous, easily identifiable and clearly legible».
Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution is also allegedly violated, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», given the conflict with Article 14 of Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998 and Article 15 of the Consumer Code, from which it can be inferred that the prescribed legibility of the retail selling price presupposes its easy visibility, with the consequence that replacing direct price display with a catalogue, by affecting the «immediateness and accessibility of information to the consumer», would alter «market uniformity».
25.– As seen, the order of questions followed by the appellant must be inverted, examining first the grievance concerning the division of competence, for violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution.
The question is well-founded.
The appellant complains of an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», deducing the conflict of the challenged regional provision, firstly, with Article 14 of Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998, according to which «[p]roducts displayed for retail sale in external shop windows or at the entrance of the premises and in the immediate vicinity of the establishment or in public areas or on sales counters, wherever located, must indicate the retail selling price in a clear and easily legible manner, by means of a sign or other suitable means» (paragraph 1).
The regional defense objected that the indicated interposed state rule would not be applicable, considering the subordinate (cedevole) character acquired by Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998 following the reform of Title V, Part II of the Constitution, by virtue of which ordinary regions, as seen, hold residual legislative competence in the matter of commerce pursuant to Article 117, fourth paragraph of the Constitution.
The objection is not decisive as to the unfoundedness of the question, since the appellant also invoked as an additional interposed state rule Article 15 of the Consumer Code, introduced in implementation of the aforementioned Directive 98/6/EC, which in paragraph 2 refers to Article 14 of Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998 «[f]or the methods of indicating the unit price». The Consumer Code thus incorporated—and its subordinate character cannot be asserted—the obligation to indicate the unit price in a «clearly legible» manner, a price that must be indicated generally for all products, pursuant to Article 14, paragraph 1 of the same Consumer Code, «[f]or the purpose of improving consumer information and facilitating price comparison», without prejudice to the exemptions provided for by the subsequent Article 16.
Nor is the regional defense decisive in the same sense when it invokes the clause contained in paragraph 4 of Article 38 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, according to which «[t]he provisions in force provided for by Legislative Decree 206/2005 are safeguarded». The new paragraph 3-bis of the same Article 38, inserted by the challenged provision, introduces a derogation from the obligation to indicate prices in a «clearly legible» manner where «reasons of public order» exist, so that such derogation would be contradictorily nullified if, in the same hypothesis, the safeguard clause for conflicting provisions of the Consumer Code were to operate.
The principle that the referenced state regulations intended to affirm is that of the easy visibility of the prices of objects displayed for retail sale in external shop windows or at the entrance of premises and in the immediate vicinity of the establishment or on public land or sales counters. In these terms, legitimacy case law has ruled, according to which «clear legibility, where prescribed, in the first paragraph [of Article 14 of Legislative Decree No. 114 of 1998], for products displayed for retail sale [...], always and in any case presupposes easy visibility» (Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Section, Order No. 14826 of June 3, 2025; in the same sense, 1st Civil Section, Judgment No. 3115 of February 16, 2005).
By permitting the indication of the price «in a specific catalogue made available to customers», and thus separately from the displayed products, the regional legislature failed to comply with the obligation to ensure easy visibility and, consequently, the easy and immediate legibility of the price.
The existence of «reasons of public order», to which the applicability of the challenged rule is subordinated, is not sufficient to exclude the conflict, as the indicated state regulations do not grant regions the power to introduce such a derogation by balancing interests underlying the matter of commerce with public order requirements. Not to mention that caring for such requirements does not fall under the residual legislative competence of regions in commerce, but under the exclusive competence of the State pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letter h) of the Constitution.
The reference state legislation is directed at protecting the consumer, having the purpose of improving their information «and facilitating price comparison» (as expressed in the aforementioned Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Consumer Code). Moreover, the aforementioned provisions of the Consumer Code represent, as stated, the implementation in the national legal order of Directive 98/6/EC on consumer protection in the indication of product prices.
However, besides protecting the consumer, the rules concerning the indication of prices of products displayed to the public also aim to promote competition among economic operators. Reference can be made in this regard to Recital 1 of the aforementioned Directive, which specifies that «transparent market functioning and correct information favor consumer protection and healthy competition between enterprises and products». In essence, the aforesaid regulations pursue the further purpose—contiguous to that directly aimed at consumer protection—of ensuring the correct and uniform functioning of the market, revealing a close link with rules countering distortive effects on competition.
Therefore, the challenged regional provision encroaches upon legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition».
The constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter aa), number 2) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which inserted Article 38, paragraph 3-bis of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, must therefore be declared.
The further ground of challenge is absorbed.
26.– Article 1, paragraph 1, letter cc), number 1) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 inserts new paragraph 2-bis into Article 43 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, entitled «End-of-Season Sales», according to which «perishable, spoiling, or near-expiry products» are excluded from the obligation provided by the same paragraph 2-bis to indicate «[o]n the price tag, in addition to the reduced selling price, [...] also the lowest price charged for that product in the last thirty days, as well as the percentage discount applied».
This provision would conflict with Article 17-bis of the Consumer Code, introduced in implementation of Article 6-bis of the aforementioned Directive 98/6/EC.
Article 6-bis provides for the obligation to indicate, in any price reduction announcement, also «the prior price» (paragraph 1), defined as «the lowest price applied by the trader during a period of time not shorter than 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction» (paragraph 2), but grants Member States the option to «provide for different rules for goods which are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly» (paragraph 3).
In the appellant’s view, the state legislature exercised this option by adopting Article 17-bis of the Consumer Code, which limited strictly to «perishable agricultural and food products» (paragraph 3) the exclusion from the obligation to also indicate «the prior price», in accordance with the methods established by Directive 98/6/EC.
The challenged regional provision, therefore, allegedly expanded the category of goods excluded from the aforementioned obligation, including generally «perishable, spoiling, or near-expiry products».
Hence the violation of Article 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, in relation to Article 6-bis of Directive 98/6/EC, insofar as the introduction of an unauthorized derogation to Article 17-bis of the Consumer Code would place itself «in conflict [...] with EU law obligations».
Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution would also be violated, due to an encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition», arising from the ascertained conflict with Article 17-bis of the Consumer Code, which does not allow the regional legislature to expand the category of goods excluded from the obligation to indicate «the prior price».
27.– The object of the questions must first of all be identified.
The appellant textually challenged Article 1, paragraph 1, letter cc), number 1) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 in its entirety, but it can be inferred from the grounds of appeal that the grievances address this provision limited to the second sentence of the new paragraph 2-bis, inserted by it into Article 43 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, where it is provided that «[p]erishable, spoiling, or near-expiry products are excluded from the preceding provisions». The preceding provisions referred to by the rule are those dictated by the same paragraph 2-bis in the first sentence, according to which «[o]n the price tag, in addition to the reduced selling price, it is mandatory to also indicate the lowest price charged for that product in the last thirty days, as well as the percentage discount applied».
It must also be specified that the interposed state rule invoked by the appellant is that contained in paragraph 3 of Article 17-bis of the Consumer Code, which limited the exclusion from the obligation to indicate «the prior price»—according to the methods indicated in the first two paragraphs of the same Article 17-bis, which substantially reproduce the first two paragraphs of Article 6-bis of Directive 98/6/EC—to «perishable agricultural and food products referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, letter m), and Article 4, paragraph 5-bis of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8, 2021», enacting «Implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 17, 2019, on unfair commercial practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, and of Article 7 of Law No. 53 of April 22, 2021, on the marketing of agricultural and food products». This is, indeed, the provision by which the state legislature exercised the option granted by the directive to establish different rules «for goods which are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly».
28.– In examining the grievances, the inverse order to that used by the appellant will be followed, as done previously, addressing first the question of competence pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution.
The question is well-founded.
Similar reasons to those set forth when examining the challenge to letter aa), number 2) can be reproposed here (supra, point 25).
Firstly, the lamented conflict with Article 17-bis, paragraph 3 of the Consumer Code exists, insofar as the regional provision excluded the category constituted by all «perishable, spoiling, or near-expiry products» from the obligation to indicate, in addition to the reduced price, also the lowest price charged for that product in the last thirty days, whereas the cited state rule excluded from the same obligation, as seen, the more limited category of «perishable agricultural and food products» listed in Articles 2, paragraph 1, letter m), and 4, paragraph 5-bis of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8, 2021.
To the contrary, the aforementioned safeguard clause for the provisions of the Consumer Code, referred to in paragraph 4 of Article 38 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, is not decisive, as noted previously. Firstly, because this clause refers to the general rules concerning the indication of the price of products displayed to the public, whereas what is relevant here is the special regulation of end-of-season sales. Secondly, because the regional provision in question also has a derogating scope with respect to the interposed state rule (represented here by Article 17-bis, paragraph 3 of the Consumer Code)—a scope that prevents the operation of the aforesaid safeguard clause, as this would contradictorily entail the application of the derogated state rule.
Furthermore, the rules concerning price reduction announcements, similarly to those governing, in general, the methods for indicating the price of products displayed to the public, pursue not only the purpose of protecting the consumer, but also the contiguous purpose of promoting healthy and correct competition among economic operators through the transparency of announcements.
Therefore, the challenged regional provision, besides infringing consumer protection, encroaches upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition» under Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution.
The constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter cc), number 1) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which inserted Article 43, paragraph 2-bis of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, must therefore be declared, limited to the words «Perishable, spoiling, or near-expiry products are excluded from the preceding provisions».
The further ground of challenge is absorbed.
29.– Article 1, paragraph 1, letter zz) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 replaced Article 68 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020.
This provision, by permitting the holding of markets on Sundays for extraordinary markets and those dedicated to antiques and collectables, while excluding second-hand markets provided for under the pre-existing text of the same Article 68, would violate Article 117, first and second paragraphs, letter e) of the Constitution, due to conflict with obligations deriving from the European Union legal order and due to encroachment upon the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of «protection of competition». The described regulatory choice, by favoring certain operators (antiques and collectables) to the detriment of others (second-hand), would alter the competitive balance between different commercial segments, thus conflicting with Article 31 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted, and with Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 1 of 2012, as converted, which, by outlining a framework for the liberalization of opening hours and days for commercial establishments, establish a uniform discipline aimed at ensuring conditions of homogenous competition throughout the national territory.
30.– Preliminarily, the inadmissibility, due to a lack of adequate reasoning, of the question brought pursuant to Article 117, first paragraph of the Constitution must be declared.
The appellant is limited to asserting that the challenged provision would violate, in addition to the State’s exclusive legislative competence in the matter of protection of competition, also «obligations deriving from the European Union legal order since the liberalization of opening hours and days constitutes a pro-competitive measure functional to the full contestability of the market».
This is a generic grievance, as no interposed standard is indicated, expressly or implicitly, given that the reference to the principle of liberalization of opening hours and days for commercial establishments relates to the conflict with the interposed rules invoked with reference to the title of exclusive competence pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution.
Consequently, the burden of proposing reasoning that is not merely assertive, but contains a specific and congruent indication of the reasons why there is a conflict with the invoked standards, supported by a concise argumentation on the merits, has not been fulfilled.
31.– Moving on to the grievance alleging violation of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution, the object of the question must be specified.
The appellant textually challenges Article 1, paragraph 1, letter zz) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025 in its entirety, but it can be inferred from the grounds of appeal that the question addresses letter zz) only to the extent that, replacing Article 68 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, it provided under letter a) of paragraph 1 of the new text that the holding of markets on Sundays is permitted only «for extraordinary markets and antiques and collectables markets», thereby excluding «second-hand» markets contemplated by the replaced provision.
Furthermore, the relevant regulatory references must be specified and relevant case-law references reconstructed.
The appellant indicates among the interposed state rules Article 31 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted. In light of the grounds of challenge, paragraph 1 of this provision must be understood as invoked.
Article 31, paragraph 1 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted, amended Article 3, paragraph 1, letter d-bis) of Decree-Law No. 4 of July 4, 2006 (Urgent provisions for economic and social relaunch, for containing and rationalizing public spending, as well as interventions in the matter of revenue and countering tax evasion), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 248 of August 4, 2006.
Article 3, paragraph 1 of Decree-Law No. 223 of 2006, as converted, in dictating rules for the protection of competition in the commercial distribution sector—for the declared purpose of ensuring conditions of equal opportunity and the correct and uniform functioning of the market, as well as ensuring for final consumers a minimum and uniform level of accessibility conditions for purchasing products and services throughout the national territory—identifies the hypotheses for which it expressly excludes that the carrying out of commercial activities may encounter limits and prescriptions.
Article 35, paragraph 6 of Decree-Law No. 98 of July 6, 2011 (Urgent provisions for financial stabilization), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 111 of July 15, 2011, added letter d-bis) to paragraph 1 of the aforementioned Article 3 of Decree-Law No. 223 of 2006, as converted, excluding that commercial activities could also encounter the following limits and prescriptions: «on an experimental basis, compliance with opening and closing hours, the obligation of Sunday and holiday closure, as well as that of the midweek half-day closure of establishments located in municipalities included in regional lists of tourist locations or art cities».
As stated, Article 31, paragraph 1 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted, amended the aforementioned letter d-bis), removing the words «on an experimental basis» and «located in municipalities included in regional lists of tourist locations or art cities» from the text of the rule, with the result that commercial activities, not only in tourist locations or art cities, may no longer encounter limits or prescriptions relating to hours or days of opening and closure to be observed, everything being left to the free assessment of the operator.
Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 1 of 2012, as converted, invoked by the appellant as an additional interposed rule, does not add appreciable novelties to this principle; for what is of interest here, it had provided for a mechanism abrogating, inter alia, «rules placing prohibitions and restrictions on economic activities that are inadequate or disproportionate to the public purposes pursued» (paragraph 1, letter b).
According to consistent constitutional case law, «the rules dictated by Article 31, paragraph 1 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, concerning Sunday and holiday opening hours of commercial establishments, pertain to the matter of the protection of competition, which being of exclusive state competence cannot be affected by provisions enacted by Regions» (Judgment No. 134 of 2021; in the same sense, Judgments No. 98 of 2017, No. 239 of 2016 and No. 299 of 2012).
32.– This being said, the question concerning Article 1, paragraph 1, letter zz) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, brought with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution, is well-founded.
The challenged regional provision, replacing Article 68 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, excluded the possibility of holding Sunday second-hand markets, which were permitted by the pre-existing text of the same Article 68, maintaining this possibility only for antiques and collectables markets, in addition to extraordinary ones.
Such a limitation conflicts with the principle of liberalization under Article 31, paragraph 1 of Decree-Law No. 201 of 2011, as converted, which, amending Article 3, paragraph 1, letter d-bis) of Decree-Law No. 223 of 2006, as converted, established that commercial activities may no longer encounter limits or prescriptions relating to opening and closing hours or days to be observed.
This regulation, as stated, is traceable to «protection of competition», a matter reserved to exclusive state legislative competence which cannot be affected by regional provisions.
By preventing entrepreneurs operating in the second-hand goods sector from accessing Sunday markets within the regional territory, the challenged provision introduces, without justification, differentiated treatment compared to operators in other sectors, for whom access to Sunday markets is permitted.
Consequently, there is an encroachment upon the exclusive legislative competence attributed to the State by Article 117, second paragraph, letter e) of the Constitution.
The constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter zz) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which replaced Article 68 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, must therefore be declared, to the extent that it fails to provide, under letter a) of paragraph 1 of the new text of Article 68, that the holding of markets on Sundays is also permitted for second-hand markets.
on those grounds
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
reserving for separate judgments the decision on the further questions of constitutional legitimacy brought by the appeal indicated in the heading;
1) declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), number 10) 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», which replaced Article 55, paragraph 10 of 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);
2) declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), numbers 2) and 4) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which inserted paragraphs 1-bis and 2-bis of Article 55 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020;
3) declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter aa), number 2) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which inserted Article 38, paragraph 3-bis of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020;
4) declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter cc), number 1) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which inserted Article 43, paragraph 2-bis of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, limited to the words «Perishable, spoiling, or near-expiry products are excluded from the preceding provisions»;
5) declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter zz) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which replaced Article 68 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, to the extent that it fails to provide, under letter a) of paragraph 1 of the new text of Article 68, that the holding of markets on Sundays is also permitted for second-hand markets;
6) declares inadmissible the questions concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter ii), numbers 1), 5) and 6) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which amended paragraph 1, inserted paragraph 2-ter, and amended paragraph 3 of Article 55 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, brought, with reference to Articles 41, 117, first paragraph—the latter in relation to Article 12 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 12, 2006, on services in the internal market—second paragraph, letter e), in relation to Article 11 of Law No. 214 of December 30, 2023 (Annual Market and Competition Law 2022), and 118 of the Constitution, by the President of the Council of Ministers, with the appeal indicated in the heading;
7) declares inadmissible the question concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter zz) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which replaced Article 68 of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, brought, with reference to Article 117, first paragraph of the Constitution, by the President of the Council of Ministers, with the appeal indicated in the heading;
8) declares unfounded the questions concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 1, letter q), numbers 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) of Campania Region Law No. 20 of 2025, which amended Article 28, paragraphs 3, 5, 8, letter e), 9 and 11, letter c) of Campania Region Law No. 7 of 2020, brought, with 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.
Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on September 23, 2026.
Signed:
Giovanni AMOROSO, President
Marco D'ALBERTI, Rapporteur
Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry
Filed in the Registry on November 9, 2026