Abstract

The case of application of art. 116, paragraph 3, has to be tackled more seriously than current debate is demonstrating. Rules meaning is not to assign a certain subject as a whole to Regions which ask for it, contributing, at the same time, financial resources, in a more or less appropriate measure. Such idea of establishing, among the matters of art. 117, paragraph 3, of the Constitution - matters subject to concurrent legislation, which art. 116, paragraph 3, is referred to - that, for instance, transports count at a national level x% of the resources, and the proposal of taking possession of the same x% calculated on revenues deriving from personal income tax (IRPEF) collected from the community we have taken into consideration, is totally unrelated to the real understanding of Constitutional rule. The question is to single out "further" autonomy margins for matters which art.3 refers to. A word such "further" imposes us to evaluate margins already available for all Regions; it is possible to understand these margins thanks to the "general principles" according to which the State is engaged to establish, and to suppose the weakening of such obligations concerning the matter we refer to. Obviously, if more resources will be necessary for this purpose, they will have to be found by Regions that require the application of art. 116, paragraph 3, by a their own autonomous fiscal effort. The attempt, particularly of Lombardy and Veneto Regions, for using art. 116, paragraph 3, as a picklock in order to circumvent the guarantees that the Constitution nowadays allow, must be, therefore, resolutely rejected.