Differentiated autonomy: the Constitutional Court will bring the parties to an agreement
It is called to the purest exercise of its primary task of promoting the unifying function of the Constitution, putting differentiated autonomy back on track and bringing the parties, claimants and government, into agreement
3' min read
3' min read
It is certain that the appeals to the Constitutional Court on the Calderoli law (No. 86/2024) do not oppose autonomy, let alone differentiated autonomy as envisaged by the Constitution. They oppose the unconstitutionality and uneconomicity of the law. The legal arguments are joined by economic and financial arguments supported by a very wide range of scholars and the highest independent institutions (Bank of Italy, Parliamentary Budget Office and Country Report on Italy of the European Commission).
The appeals, on the other hand, open the way for an implementation of differentiated autonomy in conformity with the Constitution as verified by the Court, allowing the dispute to be overcome. Minister Calderoli and President Zaia had declared themselves in favour of the reasonable regulation of the requests for understandings, the preservation of the strategic role of the State as well as the simultaneous implementation of fiscal federalism, essential levels and differentiated autonomy. Then the requests made in the past few days by the Veneto Region for the so-called non-Levels of government went in the opposite direction.
Even the most experienced supporters of law no. 86/24 find it hard to understand the meaning of the great opposition that has grown in recent months in the country and in the most qualified public opinion. They continue to accuse it of being against autonomy and the Constitution in the wake of the previous scenario that saw those who supported the incongruity and impracticability of the rule on differentiated autonomy opposed on the one hand and those who amplified its scope to the point of requesting extensive transfers of matters or major functions on the basis of an imaginary derogation of Article 117 on the other.
After the parliamentary debate and appeals, the picture is quite different.
The recentappeal by more than 200 constitutionalists summarises the outcome, arguing that the implementation of the constitutional provision only allows for a limited expansion of the powers of an individual region and considering Law No. 86/24 misleading and lacking in limits and criteria in this respect. The appeal points out how the law places the national government at the centre of the procedure, making it the real deus ex machina that guides the agreement with the region concerned and presents the bill of agreement in its place, pushing Parliament and the Conference of the Regions to the margins, with a simple decree it can limit the matters subject to agreement. The differentiated autonomy of government is assumed as a single, fundamental and driving principle that overlaps with other constitutional norms.
