Security decree, first referral to the Council on cannabis
The heterogeneity of the text and the violation of the principle of offensiveness are in the crosshairs
Key points
First referral to the Constitutional Court of a provision of the Security Decree. The Gip of the Court of Brindisi raised the question of the constitutionality of Article 18 of the measure, insofar as it prohibits 'the import, transfer, processing, distribution, trade, transport, dispatch, delivery, sale to the public and consumption of products consisting ofhemp inflorescences (cannabis sativa), even in semi-processed, dried or crushed form, as well as containing such inflorescences, including extracts, resins and oils derived therefrom'.
The Facts
The case concerns a seizure of hemp, destined for Italian companies, inside two trucks of Bulgarian nationality, executed by the Guardia di Finanza in December 2024. In May 2025, the Public Prosecutor's Office had ordered its destruction, explaining that the provisions introduced by the Security Decree extend the scope of confiscation 'to the derivatives of the cultivation of cannabis of the sativa species, even regardless of a proven narcotic effect of the substance'.
The suspects opposed the destruction decree and the defence lawyers asked the judge to raise the issue of constitutional legitimacy. The judge upheld it and suspended the proceedings, considering the rule to be contrary to Articles 77, 13, 25, 27, and 117 of the Constitution.
The issues at stake
Plural, therefore, the issues raised. First of all, the formal one, in fact, the ordinance underlines how decree 48/2025 was "issued outside the extraordinary cases of necessity and urgency that represent the prerequisite for the executive power to exercise the legislative function, without prejudice to the conversion of the same decree in parliament". In particular, it was the heterogeneity of the subjects dealt with that weighed heavily: 'the lack of homogeneity, in fact, has been repeatedly considered a symptomatic figure of the lack of the justifying prerequisites of the urgency measure'.
On a more substantive level, then, according to the Gip, 'in the absence of scientific proof that the use of products derived from hemp plants can cause psychotropic or harmful effects on the basis of the available and shared scientific data, to prohibit ex abrupto, under threat of criminal law enforcement, the industrial cultivation of hemp plants that has been permitted up to now conflicts, beyond doubt, with the principle of offensiveness'.
