Law on differentiated autonomy: seven rejections by the Constitutional Court. What happens now

And again. In the Court's crosshairs are: 'The possibility of modifying, by inter-ministerial decree, the rates of the co-partecipation to the revenue from state taxes, provided for financing the transferred functions, in the event of a discrepancy between the expenditure requirements and the trend of the same revenue; on the basis of this provision, inefficient regions could be rewarded, which - after having obtained from the State the resources for the exercise of the transferred functions - are not able to ensure with those resources the fulfilment of the same functions'.

Also unconstitutional is "the optionality, rather than the dutifulness, for the devolved regions to contribute to public finance objectives, with the consequent weakening of the Republic's bonds of solidarity and unity"; as well as "the extension of Law No. 86 of 2024, and therefore of Article 116, third paragraph, of the Constitution to the special statute regions, which instead, to obtain greater forms of autonomy, can resort to the procedures provided for by their special statutes".

The Court went on to clarify that certain provisions of the law in order to be considered constitutionally legitimate must be interpreted as follows: "The legislative initiative relating to the law of differentiation is not to be understood as being reserved solely to the Government; the law of differentiation is not of mere approval of the understanding ("take it or leave it") but implies the power of amendment of the Chambers - in which case the understanding may possibly be renegotiated; the limitation of the need to predetermine LEPs to certain matters (distinction between "LEP matters" and "no-LEP matters") is to be understood in the sense that, if the legislature qualifies a matter as "no-LEP", the relevant transfers may not concern functions pertaining to services concerning civil and social rights.

And again: "The identification, through co-participations to the revenue of state taxes, of the resources earmarked for the transferred functions shall take place not on the basis of historical expenditure, but rather by taking as a reference standard costs and requirements and efficiency criteria, freeing up resources to be retained by the State to cover the expenses that, notwithstanding the devolution, remain at the charge of the same; the financial invariance clause requires - in addition to what has been specified in the previous point - that, at the time of the conclusion of the agreement and of the identification of the relevant resources, the general framework of public finance, the trends of the economic cycle, and the fulfilment of the Euro-Union obligations be taken into account'.

"It is for Parliament, in the exercise of its discretion, to fill the gaps resulting from the acceptance of some of the issues raised by the applicants, in compliance with constitutional principles, so as to ensure the full functionality of the law." This is the phononal closing of the Constitutional Court's note on Autonomy. "The Court remains competent to scrutinise the constitutionality of the individual differentiation laws, should they be censured in a main appeal by other regions or in an incidental manner."

"The Constitutional Court's decision has made it unequivocally clear that the law on differentiated autonomy as a whole complies with the Constitution. On individual profiles of the law we will wait for the motivations of the ruling, to assess any corrections to be made'. Thus the Minister for Regional Affairs and Autonomies, Roberto Calderoli, commenting on the Constitutional Court's decision.

'Autonomy has passed the constitutionality test and this is very good news: the findings will be easily overcome by Parliament. After yesterday's technical opinion on the Strait Bridge, it is another decisively positive step forward'. This was reported by League sources.

Among the first reactions, to the contrary, was that of the president of the Puglia Region, Michele Emiliano. 'We defended the unity of the Republic and the equality of the Regions and Italian citizens. The Calderoli law, as conceived by the government, has been completely deconstructed by the Constitutional Court and technically no longer exists, being substantially inapplicable,' Emiliano said. Puglia was the first region to appeal the Calderoli law to the Constitutional Court.

In a completely different tone was the comment of Veneto governor Luca Zaia. "The Constitutional Court has confirmed the legitimacy of the law on differentiated autonomy, sanctioning once again that our path is in line with the Constitution. It is an important confirmation and represents a historic step for Veneto and for the whole country,' Zaia said, commenting on the Constitutional Court's ruling and explaining that the region's experts 'will be watching over'.

These are concepts relaunched by the president of Lombardy, Attilio Fontana, for whom today's pronouncement by the Constitutional Court "puts the word 'end' to those who, artfully, have until today defined the 'Calderoli Law' on differentiated Autonomy as unconstitutional" according to the president of Lombardy Attilio Fontana, for whom "Autonomy will be done". And 'as early as tomorrow we will assess in detail the remarks made by the Constitutional Court, but what is most important is that the negotiations do not stop and the path undertaken goes ahead to achieve the result desired by the Lombardy people'.

"I had suggested to the government a surplus of reflection and a moratorium on differentiated autonomy. Today the moratorium, with much more authority than I have, is imposed by the Constitutional Court'. Roberto Occhiuto, Forza Italia president of the Calabria Region, wrote this on X. Occhiuto has always been, among the centre-right governors, the most critical of the reform's structure.

"The ruling on the Calderoli law dismantles the Calderoli law and defends the unity of the country. The Constitutional Court has upheld, in large part and in all its essential core, the censures made in the appeal promoted by the Campania Region and the other plaintiff Regions, and substantially 'rewrites' the law in the terms that the Campania Region itself proposed with an amendment bill to the Calderoli Law sent to the Chambers pursuant to Article 121 of the Constitution a few weeks ago'. Thus the President of the Campania Region, Vincenzo De Luca.

A few months ago Minister Salvini addressed me saying that autonomy is provided for in the Constitution and that he would give me one. I would like to reply to him that he can keep it and maybe give it to Meloni and they can read it together. Let them learn to read the Constitution better to avoid this umpteenth flop with a law that has profiles of unconstitutionality'. This was said by PD secretary Elly Schlein.

The M5s leader is on the same wavelength. "We fought in Parliament (even taking punches), in the squares to the sound of signatures, with our governor Alessandra Todde, who had her grounds for appeal accepted. Today the Constitutional Court is putting the brakes on the autonomy project with which Meloni, Salvini and Tajani wanted to tear the tricolour and our unity to shreds,'. This was written on Facebook by M5s president Giuseppe Conte in a post entitled 'an important stop to differentiated autonomy: Italy is one'. 'Italy is one and united,' he continues, 'we will always defend it, with the greatest determination. With the most intense passion. Let them get over it'.