Differentiated autonomy, the Council partially rejects the reform

More than a stop, a slap on differentiated autonomy. The Constitutional Court, which closed the two-day council chamber in the evening on the findings raised by the appeals of the regions of Puglia, Tuscany, Sardinia and Campania, deemed the question of constitutionality of the entire law to be unfounded, but – as expected – dismantles some of the main issues of the Calderoli law and “recognizes the unconstitutionality” of seven aspects of the law. The sentence just communicated by the Court therefore reserves a much more serious outcome than the League feared. The reasons will be filed within the next few weeks, but in two dense pages the judges briefly explain the contents of the choice.

“It is up to Parliament, in the exercise of its discretion, to fill the gaps resulting from the acceptance of some of the issues raised by the appellants, in compliance with constitutional principles, in order to ensure the full functionality of the law – it is explained in the introduction – The Court remains competent to examine the constitutionality of individual differentiation laws, should they be challenged with appeal primarily from other regions or incidentally”.

The central aspects of the law are those that appear demolished or drastically penalized by the Consulta’s analysis. In summary: “The possibility that the agreement between the State and the region and the subsequent differentiation law transfer subjects or areas of subjects, where the Court believes that the devolution must concern specific legislative and administrative functions and must be justified, in relation to the individual region, in light of the aforementioned principle of subsidiarity”; the granting of a legislative delegation for the determination of the so-called Lep, the essential levels of performance, “concerning civil and social rights without suitable directive criteria, with the consequence that the substantial decision is placed back in the hands of the government, limiting the constitutional role of Parliament”. And again: “The expectation that a decree from the President of the Council of Ministers (Dpcm) determines the updating of the Lep”.

In other words, the Lep cannot be determined by a Prime Ministerial Decree, nor does it seem that the activism of the committee wanted by Minister Calderoli to establish, in such a short time, by jurists and experts, the costs could ever have achieved the objective standards for services and rights that had been waiting to be defined for twenty years.

But the statement from the Consulta goes on to examine the other profiles of unconstitutionality accepted in their ruling: “The possibility of modifying, by inter-ministerial decree, the rates of revenue sharing of state taxes, envisaged to finance the transferred functions, in the event of a discrepancy between the spending needs and the trend of the same revenue; on the basis of this provision, the inefficient regions could be rewarded, which – after having obtained from the State the resources aimed at carrying out the transferred functions – are not able to ensure the complete fulfillment of the same functions with those resources”.

The Court then puts the principle of subsidiarity back at the centre. And it underlines that the distribution of legislative and administrative functions between the State and the Regions “must not” correspond to the need for a distribution of powers between the different segments of the political system” but must take place “in function of the common good of society and the protection of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution”. It is, therefore, “the constitutional principle of subsidiarity that regulates the distribution of functions between the State and the regions”.

Since the aim of autonomy is certainly not to adhere to the claims of the Regions but “it must be functional to improve the efficiency of the public apparatus, to ensure greater political responsibility and to better respond to the expectations and needs of citizens”.

Especially in a country burdened by increasing gaps.

The reactions

The opposition attacks the majority. “The Constitutional Court rejects the reform”, “Italy is united and united”, rejoices the president of the M5S Giuseppe Conte. “Salvini told me a few months ago that autonomy is in the Constitution and that he would give me one – says the secretary of the Democratic Party Elly Schlein – I’d say you can keep it and maybe give it to someone Giorgia Meloni so they read it together.”

The president of the Sardinia Region rejoices Alessandra Toddewhich brands the reform as “a threat to the fundamental principle of equality between all citizens”. For Angelo Bonelli of Avs the Court’s decision “is the demolition of the Calderoli law and the stop of the political trading between Meloni and Salvini”, while for the leader of Action Carlo Calenda “the government will not be able to do what it wanted and what the Council considered detrimental to the powers of Parliament” and for Riccardo Magi by +Europa the reform is “game over”.

The reactions in the majority, with the Northern League minister, were completely different Roberto Calderolifather of the law, who says “we are evaluating with the technicians”, but the League says it is satisfied because the Court has not declared the entire system unconstitutional, limiting itself to some findings that “will easily be overcome by Parliament”.

Also for the governor of Veneto, Luca Zaiathe Court “confirmed the legitimacy of the law establishing once again that our path is in line with the Constitution” and for the Lombard governor, Attilio Fontana“Autonomy will be achieved. The mystifying owls and dispensers of fake news are proven wrong”.

Forza Italia points out that the importance of the Consulta goes in the direction already indicated by the Azzurri, who have always underlined the importance of securing and defining the Lep. “The path of reform – underlines the party – does not stop, but continues in parliamentary reflection. FI will continue to act responsibly, in the interests of citizens, guaranteeing national unity”.

Now it will be necessary to see what weight the decisions of the Consulta will have on the referendums and it is not excluded that, in light of the Court’s findings, the questions should be considered overcome.