Abstract

The essay examines the reasoning behind the Constitutional Court’s decision n. 138/2023, declaring unconstitutional a regional law in the regional «delegification», addressing three crucial issues. Firstly, it questions whether a different outcome (inadmissibility without entering the merits) of the constitutionality judgment could have been possible, considering regional legislation after the initiation of the constitutional review. Furthermore, it offers some arguments to contest exclusively hierarchical interpretation of the relationship between the Statute and regional law (already affirmed in 2019 and reiterated here), preferring the criterion of competence. Lastly, it analyzes some arguments put forward by the Court, which seem to foreshadow the elaboration of tests of adequacy regarding the «sufficient analyticity» of the general norms of the subject matter. This leads to two additional issues: the necessity of a parametric integration of art. 123 of the Constitution; the comparison of the regional discipline with the State one regarding the organization of public offices. This comparison reveals a «variable geometry» outcome, depending on whether State laws or regional sources are considered.