Constitutional Court: the debate on Differentiated Autonomy

1. The facts

   The case originates from the approval of Law No. 86 of June 26, 2024, aimed at implementing differentiated autonomy for Regions with ordinary statutes. According to reports from Il Fatto Quotidiano, the legislation was immediately perceived as a risk to national unity, prompting five regional administrations to raise questions of legitimacy before the Constitutional Court. The criticisms, also echoed by Avvenire, focused on the potential creation of first- and second-class citizens, especially regarding access to crucial services such as healthcare and education. Rivista AIC delved into the nature of the legislative delegation, highlighting the friction between executive and parliamentary powers in determining the costs necessary to finance the new transfers.

   The procedural stage reached its climax on November 14, 2024, with the publication of the Constitutional Court's official press release, which anticipated the contents of the final judgment. The judges ruled that while differentiated autonomy is not in itself unconstitutional, the framework law contains seven profiles of unconstitutionality. In particular, the Court censured the use of administrative decrees to define essential levels of performance, effectively stripping Parliament of its primary guarantee function. The decision now mandates a new legislative step to correct the identified distortions and ensure that national solidarity is not sacrificed for regional efficiency.

2. 

   The laws in play

   The regulatory center of gravity is represented by Art. 116, third paragraph, of the Constitution, which allows Regions to request further forms and special conditions of autonomy. However, this provision must coexist with Art. 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, which grants the State exclusive competence in determining the LEPs (Essential Performance Levels) concerning civil and social rights.

   1. The function of the LEPs is to guarantee a uniform minimum threshold of services across the national territory.
   2. The violation found by the Court concerns the procedural flaw: LEPs cannot be defined through DPCM, as the matter requires a statutory reserve ensuring parliamentary debate.
   3. The consequences of the ruling involve the suspension of the transfer of functions where the underlying rule was declared unconstitutional, obliging the State to review the financing criteria based on historical expenditure in favor of fairer standard costs.

3. What case law says

   Constitutional jurisprudence has always interpreted autonomy not as an absolute right of separation, but as a faculty subordinate to the principle of unity and indivisibility of the Republic enshrined in Art. 5 of the Constitution. In the past, the Court clarified that every decentralization must be accompanied by financial equalization mechanisms, so that the weakest areas are not penalized. The Constitutional Court has also consolidated the orientation according to which fundamental social rights, such as health or education, cannot undergo territorial variations that affect the essential core of the right itself. With the latest decision, the judges reiterated that the principle of subsidiarity does not justify a blank delegation to the Government, confirming that parliamentary control is the only barrier against arbitrary disparate treatment between citizens of different regions.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. The hierarchy of legal sources is not an academic relic: where fundamental rights are involved, the statutory reserve precludes the use of ministerial decrees or non-legislative administrative acts.
   2. Every act of administrative decentralization must contain financial safeguard clauses that uphold the principle of service invariance for unaffected parties.
   3. In public administration consulting, it is essential to ensure that delegations of functions are always strictly defined in content and duration, avoiding blank delegations susceptible to legal challenge for abuse of power.

References: Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana Art. 2Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana Art. 3Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana Art. 5Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana Art. 116Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana Art. 117Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana Art. 119Legge 26 giugno 2024 n. 86

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 30 October 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction