This essay aims to investigate the arrangement of the matter of “professions” in the constitutional division of competences between the State and the Regions. In view of a brief reconstruction of the classification of the “profession” juridical category, enucleated on the basis of a triple breakdown among the formal, substantial and constitutional notions of the matter, the essay emphasizes the qualification of the legal regime of “ordinistic” professions, “recognized” and “unregulated”, underlining the prevalence of a manifestly homogeneous vocation of the matter which has an impact on the determination of the constitutional rule of competence. Having considered this, the analysis focuses more specifically on the problems associated with the evolution of relations between the State and the Regions in early regionalism, highlighting the markedly state-centric nature of a scheme for the division of competences which, in the field of professional organization, has certainly favored the canon of uniformity was over the canon of differentiation. A predilection which, in truth, seems to have remained unchanged even after the constitutional revision law n. 3 of 2001 which included the “professions” in the category of matters of concurrent competence between the State and the Regions. As a matter of fact, the reflection focuses on the development of the matter in the concrete order, paying particular attention to the spaces occupied by state and regional legislation and questioning, on the basis of a broader examination of constitutional jurisprudence, on the functionality of a competitive scheme that would impose a limited competition between the state standardization of principle and the regional detailed legislation. Ultimately, the investigation conducted on the aporias of the system moves in the direction of suggesting some prospects for reform that open up new margins of intervention for the regional legislator, especially in a field, such as that of the discipline of non-ordinistic professions, which has also been affected from the requests for “greater autonomy” proposed by the outcome of the regional initiatives recently undertaken for the implementation of the so-called “Asymmetry clause”.
Obiettivo del saggio è quello di indagare la sistemazione della materia delle “professioni” nel riparto costituzionale delle competenze tra Stato e Regioni. Premessa una breve ricostruzione sull’inquadramento della categoria giuridica di “professione”, enucleata sulla base di una triplice scomposizione tra una nozione formale, sostanziale e costituzionale della materia, il saggio pone l’accento sulla qualificazione del regime giuridico delle professioni “ordinistiche”, “riconosciute” e “non regolamentate”, sottolineando il prevalere di una vocazione manifestamente omogenea della materia che ha impattato sulla determinazione della regola costituzionale di competenza. Ciò considerato, l’analisi si incentra più specificamente sulle problematicità connesse all’evoluzione dei rapporti tra Stato e Regioni nel primo regionalismo, evidenziando la natura marcatamente statocentrica di uno schema di ripartizione delle competenze che, in materia di ordinamento professionale, ha senz’altro privilegiato il canone dell’uniformità su quello della differenziazione. Una predilezione che, per il vero, sembra essersi mantenuta inalterata pur dopo la legge di revisione costituzionale n. 3 del 2001 che ha ricompreso le “professioni” nel novero delle materie di competenza concorrente tra Stato e Regioni. Ed infatti, la riflessione si sofferma sullo svolgimento della materia nell’ordinamento concreto, prestando peculiare attenzione agli spazi occupati dalla normativa statale e regionale e interrogandosi, sulla scorta di una più ampia disamina della giurisprudenza costituzionale, sulla funzionalità di uno schema concorrenziale che imporrebbe un concorso vincolato tra la normazione statale di principio e la legislazione regionale di dettaglio. In ultima analisi, l’indagine condotta sulle aporie del sistema muove nella direzione di suggerire alcune prospettive di riforma che dischiudano nuovi margini di intervento per il legislatore regionale specie in un campo, come quello della disciplina delle professioni non ordinistiche, che pure è stato interessato dalle richieste di “maggiore autonomia” proposte all’esito delle iniziative regionali recentemente intraprese per l’attuazione della c.d. “clausola di asimmetria”.
La materia delle professioni: una concorrenza (sleale) tra normazione statale di principio e legislazione regionale di dettaglio
Cipolloni
2020-01-01
Abstract
This essay aims to investigate the arrangement of the matter of “professions” in the constitutional division of competences between the State and the Regions. In view of a brief reconstruction of the classification of the “profession” juridical category, enucleated on the basis of a triple breakdown among the formal, substantial and constitutional notions of the matter, the essay emphasizes the qualification of the legal regime of “ordinistic” professions, “recognized” and “unregulated”, underlining the prevalence of a manifestly homogeneous vocation of the matter which has an impact on the determination of the constitutional rule of competence. Having considered this, the analysis focuses more specifically on the problems associated with the evolution of relations between the State and the Regions in early regionalism, highlighting the markedly state-centric nature of a scheme for the division of competences which, in the field of professional organization, has certainly favored the canon of uniformity was over the canon of differentiation. A predilection which, in truth, seems to have remained unchanged even after the constitutional revision law n. 3 of 2001 which included the “professions” in the category of matters of concurrent competence between the State and the Regions. As a matter of fact, the reflection focuses on the development of the matter in the concrete order, paying particular attention to the spaces occupied by state and regional legislation and questioning, on the basis of a broader examination of constitutional jurisprudence, on the functionality of a competitive scheme that would impose a limited competition between the state standardization of principle and the regional detailed legislation. Ultimately, the investigation conducted on the aporias of the system moves in the direction of suggesting some prospects for reform that open up new margins of intervention for the regional legislator, especially in a field, such as that of the discipline of non-ordinistic professions, which has also been affected from the requests for “greater autonomy” proposed by the outcome of the regional initiatives recently undertaken for the implementation of the so-called “Asymmetry clause”.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.