The case, explained

The Partial Unconstitutionality of Differentiated Autonomy: Constitutional Limits

5 min read · Updated May 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

The implementation process of differentiated autonomy faced a decisive setback with the Constitutional Court's ruling on Law No. 86/2024 (the so-called Calderoli Law). The case stems from appeals filed by several Regions, leading the Court to a landmark ruling of partial unconstitutionality that redefined the boundaries between state and regional powers. By reconstructing the events of 2024, this analysis examines how the principle of the unity of the Republic coordinates with regionalist aspirations. It also presents a didactic twin case to illustrate how the principles of statutory reserve and the determination of Essential Levels of Provision (LEP) apply in complex organizational contexts, providing an operational guide for legal professionals.

In brief

This article analyzes the declaration of partial unconstitutionality of Law No. 86/2024 on differentiated autonomy. It reviews the Constitutional Court's judgment censuring seven aspects of the reform, including the legislative delegation for determining LEPs and the financial neutrality clause. Through a simulated case study, it examines the practical implications of the principle of equality and statutory reserve, providing legal practitioners with practical guidance on administrative decentralization and the protection of fundamental rights.

  1. The facts

    The case concerns the constitutionality of Law No. 86 of June 26, 2024. According to press reports, the Constitutional Court partially upheld the appeals filed by Puglia, Tuscany, Sardinia, and Campania, declaring unconstitutional the core provisions that allowed excessive deregulation.

    Media coverage highlighted how the Court censured the transfer of entire subject matters without a specific justification based on the principle of subsidiarity. Legal commentary focused on the violation of the statutory reserve, as the determination of LEPs (Essential Levels of Provision) cannot be entrusted to mere ministerial decrees (DPCM) lacking defined parliamentary criteria.

    The proceedings reached their conclusion with the filing of the Court's ruling, requiring Parliament to intervene and amend the legislative text.

  2. The rules at play

    The central legal framework includes Art. 116, paragraph 3, of the Constitution, which permits differentiated regionalism while subordinating it to national interest. Art. 117, paragraph 2, letter m), establishes the State's exclusive competence in determining LEPs to guarantee civil and social rights nationwide.

    Art. 3 of the Constitution (principle of equality) was invoked to prevent discrimination between citizens residing in different regions. Finally, Art. 81 of the Constitution concerns budget balance: the Court censured the financial neutrality clause where it risked making LEPs merely symbolic in the absence of secured funds.

  3. Case law

    Constitutional case law has consolidated the principle that autonomy is not an end in itself, but a tool to improve the efficiency of public services. The Court clarified that fundamental rights cannot undergo territorial differentiation based on the fiscal capacity of individual areas.

    The doctrine regarding relative statutory reserve was reaffirmed: Parliament cannot divest itself of its legislative function over LEPs in favor of the Government without establishing precise guiding criteria, thereby ensuring democratic oversight over minimum essential standards in healthcare and education.

  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 delegation of functions must always be accompanied by analytical guiding criteria;
    2. Fundamental rights require uniform standards that cannot be waived by secondary acts;
    3. In appeals against decentralization, it is essential to plead the violation of the statutory reserve;
    4. Efficiency never justifies the violation of formal and substantive equality.

References: Legge 26 giugno 2024, n. 86Articolo 3 CostituzioneArticolo 81 CostituzioneArticolo 116 CostituzioneArticolo 117 Costituzione

Related cases

29/07/2026AI Regulation and Biometrics: The Legislative Path Between Security and Privacy22/07/2026Beach Concessions Case: Plenary Assembly on Title Expiration15/07/2026Legitimacy and nature of the Milano-Cortina 2026 Foundation: between private law and public control
Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAM

Frequently asked questions

What happens if a law is declared partially unconstitutional?

The specific provisions annulled cease to be effective from the day following the publication of the ruling. The rest of the law remains in force, but Parliament must usually intervene to fill the regulatory gaps created.

What are LEPs and why are they so important?

Essential Levels of Provision (LEPs) are the minimum service standards that the State must guarantee to all citizens throughout the national territory to protect civil and social rights.

Can a citizen or business oppose a regional rule that differentiates their rights?

Yes, if the rule violates the principle of equality or LEPs, it is possible to challenge the act before the competent court, which may disapply the administrative act or raise a question of constitutional legitimacy.

Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal

Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.

Try edit.legal for free