Abstract

The paper analyses the topic of indirect injury of competence («ridondanza»), that is the standing of the regions to invoke – in the direct constitutional judgment – constitutional rules unrelated to the division of competence. The paper reports recent doctrinal essays and constitutional case law, focusing particularly on three aspects: a) which rank must the restricted regional power have?; b) can there be indirect injury of competence if the state law regulates a subject (in a proper sense, not a transverse one) of exclusive state competence? c) what are the motivational burdens of the regions and when can the court go to the merits? At the end, the paper highlights how constitutional case law is settling towards a concept of indirect injury of competence which is both clearer and more favourable to the effectiveness of the protection of the constitutional autonomy of local authorities: for example, in recent decisions 194 and 195/2019 the Constitutional court affirmed the possibility of indirect injury of competence in State exclusive (non-transverse) subjects.