This document has been provided by the
International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL).

ICNL is the leading source for information on th e legal environment for civil society and public
participation. Since 1992, ICNL has served as a resource to civil society leaders, government
officials, and the donor community in over 90 countries.

Visit ICNL’s Online Library at
https://www.icnl.org/knowledge/library/index.php
for further resources and research from countries all over the world.

Disclaimers Content. The information provided herein is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended and should not be
construed to constitute legal advice. The information contai ned herein may not be applicable in all situations and may not, after the date of
its presentation, even reflect the most current authority. Noth ing contained herein should be relied or acted upon without the benefit of legal
advice based upon the particular facts and circumstances pres ented, and nothing herein should be construed otherwise.
Translations. Translations by ICNL of any materials into other languages are intended solely as a convenience. Translation accuracy is not
guaranteed nor implied. If any questions arise related to the accuracy of a translation, please refer to the original language official version of
the document. Any discrepancies or differences created in the tr anslation are not binding and have no legal effect for compliance or
enforcement purposes.
Warranty and Limitation of Liability. Although ICNL uses reasonable efforts to include ac curate and up-to-date information herein, ICNL
makes no warranties or representations of any kind as to its a ccuracy, currency or completeness. You agree that access to and u se of this
document and the content thereof is at your own risk. ICNL discl aims all warranties of any kind, express or implied. Neither ICNL nor any
party involved in creating, producing or delivering this document shall be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of access to, use of
or inability to use this document, or any e rrors or omissions in the content thereof.

The Principle of Subsidiarity in Italy: Its Meaning As A
“Horizontal” Principle And Its Recent Constitutional
Recognition
By Andrea Maltoni *
Premise.
The term subsidiarity, which has a multiplicity of meanings [1] , has only recently become a positive
principle of the Italian legal system. It is a concept that has been long rooted in philosophical,
theological as well as in political thoughts and mainstreams. Just think that among the spiritual fathers
of the modern concept o f subsidiarity are found such thinkers as Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Johannes
Althusius, Robert von Mohl, Georg Jellinek, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, and Alexis de Tocqueville [2] .
However, it must be recognized that the principle of “horizontal” subsidiarity finds its most
accomplished conceptual definition in the social doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, beginning with
the Papal Encyclical Quadrigesimo anno of Pope Pius XI, issued in 1931 [3] .
From that very encyclical — Quadrigesimo anno — one can ascertain that the principle of subsidiarity
can be divided into two separat e meanings. On the one hand, it provides for a criterion of favor
towards the various expressions of single individuals and of social organizations and activities that are
independently exercised by them. This also carries with it the duty of the public au thorities to abstain
from intervening in those instances in which the action of individuals and non -profit organizations is
directed towards accomplishing the same ends. On the other hand, the principle refers to the fact that
public institutions replace s ingle individuals and organizations when these do not manage adequately
to carry out collective interests [4] .
At present the principle of horizontal subsidiarity is reg arded as a criterion that operates in all those
relationships between institutional and social entities of diverse dimensions, granting the preference to
the lesser entities and legitimizing the actions of larger entities only when their action is meant to
enhance the inadequate capacity of the lesser entities [5] . As regards the benefit that the larger
entity must be able to give to the lesser one, the horizontal subsidia rity principle recognizes that the
subsidy itself must undergo some limitations: when the first entity, the larger one, has brought the
second or lesser one to a level on which it is able to continue on its own strength in attending to its
purposes, the la rger entity must withdraw and intervene again only when the minor entity is again in
a condition of requiring assistance. [6] In conclusion, the principle of horizontal su bsidiarity implies that society in all its various forms (as a
community of persons at the sub -state, state and international level) places itself at the service of the
individual human being. The individual is thus considered as both a single entity of s ocial expression
and as being within a social pattern in which his/her personality can unfold (in accordance to the
maxim: civitas propter cives, non cives propter civitatem ). In such a context, one can fully grasp the
connection between subsidiarity and the principle of social pluralism, as it is expressed in article 2 of
the Italian Constitution. [7] 2. The principle of subsidiarity in the administrative reform of 1997
In the early 1990’s, the Italian administrative system underwent some profound reforms, among
which are the following important changes: the law governing administrative proceedings; the law on
the ordering of local autonomies; the law on the system of cont rols. More recently, with law no. 59 of
March 15, 1997, other reforms have been directed toward enhancing local governments through a
vast program of devolution of government functions among the various levels of the sub -state powers.
As far as the devolut ion of administrative functions and tasks from the central government to the
peripheral entities of government is more specifically concerned, law no. 59/97 has particularly
contemplated that the exercise of public responsibilities falls by preference to t he authorities that are

closest to the citizens. [8] Thus, law no. 59/97 has overturned the traditional criterion by which the
devolution of the functions and the administ rative tasks are to be shared by and among the State, the
regions and the local governments. The pivotal point of the administrative system has indeed switched
from the central State Administration to the county and local levels, since it is now the State that
comes to be entrusted only with those functions that are specifically defined and enumerated in the
laws.
Although it is clear that it was the vertical dimension of the principle of subsidiarity that was
particularly on the mind of the legislators in 1997, it cannot be denied that a kind of horizontal
subsidiarity was also introduced. Indeed, law no. 59/97 includes a strict connection between horizontal
and vertical subsidiarity. In this respect, it provides that devolution of the administrative functi ons
from central government to local governments must take place “also to permit that families,
associations, and/or communities may carry out public functions.”
It is out of this definition that one can thus clearly construe the double meaning of the prin ciple of
subsidiarity. It is vertical when it operates in relationship with and among diverse levels of
government and horizontal when it becomes a criterion apt to regulate relationships among all social
groups in general and among public entities and ind ividuals and private entities more specifically. [9] 3. The principle of horizontal subsidiarity: from legislative decree no. 112/1998, which
enacted law no. 59/97 to t he regional legislation implementing legislative decree no.
112/98
The principle of subsidiarity constitutes the pivotal point around which revolves the entire process of
devolution of government functions from the center to the periphery. In the framework of chapter I of
the law no. 59/97, the principle of subsidiarity has been raised in fact to a fundamental criterion for
the re -partition of functions among the different territorial levels of government. Thus, it has become,
on the one hand, one of the fu ndamental criteria and principles for the exercise of delegated power on
the part of the Government and, on the other hand, one of the fundamental principles according to
which county governments have implemented the laws passed by the Parliament. [10] On examining the regional enactment laws of decree no. 112/98 there emerges also a rather complex
multi -faceted picture. There are essentially three different models of regional implementation of this
legislative decree.
1. Some county governments have adopted a
comprehensive set of laws in order to allocate the
functions among the many regional and local entities.
2. Other county governments, while still in line with the
passing of a comprehensive body of laws, have opted
for a law of principles, followed by a specific law
whereby specific functions are allocated.
3. Still other county governments have implemented
legislative decree no. 112 with a multiplicity of sector
interventions in the areas that are the subject of
function t ransfers.
Among these regional laws, the implementation norms of
regions like Lombardy and Veneto [11] are the ones that
have reduced the presence of public powers in fa vor of
private entities, and, above all, in favor of not -for -profit
organizations.

4. The principle of horizontal subsidiarity and its formal recognition in the Italian
Constitution
Constitutional law no. 1 of 1997 set up a parliamentary committee empowere d to bring forward
proposals to change the second part of the Italian Constitution. In the reform bill regarding the second
part of the Constitution, [12] which bore the title of “Federal System of the Republic,” the principle of
subsidiarity, discussed in the opening of title I, became the foundation of the new model of the
Republic. [13] In this respect, article 56 of the bill reads as follows: “As regards the activities that can
be carried out by the direct autonomous initiative of the citizens, even through their social groupings,
public functions are attributed to local governments, counties and the State on the basis of the
principles of subsidiarity and differentiation.”
This version of article 56 (which was the second one proposed) granted individuals a particular
autonomy and recognized the possibility of their taking on certain initiatives consistent with limitations
on public functions. Nevertheless, it did not grant t he private sector a sort of priority in the economy
and in the management of public services. Rather, at the most, it drew a protective line against the
interference by the public sector, admitting that whenever it can be demonstrated that “certain
activit ies can be carried out in a more adequate manner by private individuals or entities, the
institutional apparatus must not interfere.” [14] This article, which at first s eemed destined to be forgotten following the failure of the parliamentary
committee, now appears to have been, as far as its essential content is concerned, to have been
redrawn under article 2 of law no. 265 of August 3, 1999 which has amended law no. 142 /90. Article 2
states clearly that local governments are entitled to exercise their own functions as well as those that
have been conferred unto them by the State and the regions, according to the principle of subsidiarity.
It also recognizes that they are to “carry out their own functions even through the activities that can
be appropriately exercised by the autonomous initiative of the citizens and by their social groups.”
Lastly, in 1999, the process of reform was newly initiated with the presentation of a Constitutional Bill
by the then Minister for Institutional Affairs Mr. Giuliano Amato. The bill aimed at transforming the
Italian form of government into a federal model, to be approved in accordance to the ordinary
procedures contemplated in article 13 8 of the Constitution.
Following a long parliamentary process that lasted more than two years and led to the modification of
significant parts of the original text, the aforementioned Constitutional Bill Amato -D’Alema [15] was
approved first by the Parliament. Later, (since the second vote in each Chamber had not achieved a
two -thirds majority) in accordance to the sense of article 138, paragraph 3, of the Constitution, a
popular referendum confirmed the law on October 7, 2001.
Among the most significant aspects of this constitutional reform, the following are noteworthy:
1. the strengthening of the political autonomy of county governments, not merely with
respect to their l egislative powers, but also more generally; and
2. the introduction of the principle of subsidiarity in both its vertical and horizontal
dimensions. [16] Devolution of powe rs from the central State down to local governments, together with the operating
consequences derived from the implementation of the principle of horizontal subsidiarity cannot but
open the way for dramatic changes in the manner in which public and social services are to be
delivered and managed in the future. Some of these are already taking place in parts of Italy, and
they show that more activities will be carried out by not -for -profit organizations than was true in the
past. The future holds the prosp ect for more fundamental change in the relationship between the
State and not -for -profit organizations as time goes on.

* Andrea Maltoni is Research Fellow in Admin istrative Law at the University of Ferrara, Italy. He can
be contacted at maltoni@economia.unife.it . Special thanks for editing of this article goes to Prof.
Alceste Santuari, Professor of Private Law at th e University of Trento and Regional Contributing Editor
of IJNL .
[1] See A. RINELLA, Il principio di sussidiarietà: definizioni, comparazioni e modello d’analisi ,
in Sussidiarietà e ordinamenti costituzionali. Esperienze a confronto , (edited by) A. RINELLA, L.
COEN, R. SCARCIGLIA, Padua, 1999, p. 3 and passim.
[2] For a de tailed reconstruction of the philosophical basis of the principle of subsidiarity in the works
of these illustrious thinkers see, in particular, R. HOFFMANN, Il principio di sussidiarietà. L’attuale
significato nel diritto costituzionale Tedesco ed il pos sibile e ruolo nell’ordinamento dell’Unione
Europea , in Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario , 1993, pp. 25 -26; G. RAZZANO, Il principio
di sussidiarietà nel progetto di riforma della Costituzione della Commissione bicamerale , in Diritto e
soci età , 1997, especially p. 531 ff.; see also A. RINELLA, Il principio di sussidiarietà , op. cit. p. 8 and
passim, P. DURET, La sussidiarietà «orizzontale»: le radici e le suggestioni di un concetto , in Jus ,
2000, p. 95 and passim. All the abovementioned wor ks draw amply from the analytical historical and
philosophical reconstruction provided by C. MILLON -DELSOL, Le principe de subsidiarité (The Principle
of Subsidiarity) , Paris, 1993.
[3] On the vast literature that has dealt with the principle of subsidiarity in the social doctrine of the
Church, see the authors cited in the previous footnote, and more specifically : P. MAGAGNOTTI, Il
principio di sussidiarietà nella dottrina sociale della Chiesa , Bologna, 1991; G. MORRA, Alla ricerca del
principio di sussidiarietà , in Federalismo e società , III, 4, 1996, 13 and passim; S. CASSESE, L’aquila
e le mosche. Principio di sussidiarietà e diritti amministrativi nell’area europea , in Sussidiarietà e
Pubbliche Amministrazioni , Atti del convegno per il 40° della Scuola di Specializzazione in Diritto
Amministrativo e Scienza dell’Amministrazion e, Bologna, September 25 -26, 1995, (edited by), F.A.
ROVERSI MONACO, Rimini, 1997, especially p. 74.
[4] In this respect , see G . COCCO
, Cronaca di molte scelte annunciate e di poche perseguite , ovvero Il principio disussidiariet à nell ’ or
dinamento italiano , in Diritto pubblico , 1998, p. 700.
[5] Cfr. A. SPADARO, Sui principi di continuità dell’ordinamento, di sussidiarietà , cit. p. 1053 and
passim; R. HOFFMANN , Il principio di sussidiarietà , cit. 27 ff. See also A. MINGARELLI, Il principio di
sussidiarietà: un criterio flessibile per la ripartizione delle competen ze tra i vari livelli istituzionali,
divenuto in Italia norma di diritto positivo, dopo l’entrata in vigore dell’articolo 4 della legge n. 59/97 ,
in Rivista di amministrazione della Repubblica italiana ., 1997, pp. 461 and passim, particularly p. 463
and P . RIDOLA, Forma di Stato e principio di sussidiarietà , in La riforma costituzionale , Atti del
Convegno, Rome, November 6 -7, 1998, Padua, 1999, specifically pp. 184 -185.
[6] See P. MAGAGNOTTI, Il principio di sussidiarietà nella dottrina sociale della Chiesa (The Principle
of Subsidiarity in the Social Doctrine of the Church) , Bologna, 1991, p. 49.
[7] See F. RIMOLI, at the entry Pluralism , in Enciclopedia giuridica Treccani , vol. VI, Rome, 1997, pp.
9-10.
[8] In Il nuovo volto della pu bblica amministrazione tra federalismo e semplificazione. Commento
organico alle Leggi Bassanini (15 -3-1997, n.59 e 15 -5-1997, n.127), ai decreti delegati attuativi ed
alle circolari interpretative ( The New Face of Public Administration between Federalism and
Simplifications. Organic Comments to the Bassanini Laws (March 15, 1997 no. 59 and May 15, 1997,
no. 127) to the Delegated Executive Decrees and the Interpretive Bulletins) , Naples, 1997, p. 24, F.
CARINGELLA, A. CRISAFULLI, G. DE MARZO, F. ROMANO observe that, following the conferral of the
general content of the functions and the tasks to the local authorities of the municipalities , as entities
closer to the citizens, such entities became admi nistrations with full competencies, since they are also
the true representatives of the primary communities.