Although Title V of Part II of the Italian Constitution contains a relatively detailed set of provisions concerning cultural heritage and cultural activities, the allocation of powers between the State and the Regions in these fields has been interpreted and applied in a far more nuanced, fragmented, and dynamic manner than the wording and structure of the constitutional text might initially suggest. This article offers some general reflections on the underlying causes of these interpretative difficulties and on the ways in which the Constitutional Court has addressed them. The overall outcome has been broadly centripetal, marked by a strong reaffirmation of the central role of the State in the field of protection in the strict sense, as defined by the Cultural Heritage Code. At the same time, this tendency has been partially tempered by an emphasis on the principle of loyal cooperation, and by cautious openings to more structured forms of regional intervention, particularly where they are aimed at the preservation of cultural heritage insufficiently addressed by state legislation.
Massa, M., IL RIPARTO DI COMPETENZE TRA STATO E REGIONI IN MATERIA DI BENI E ATTIVITÀ CULTURALI, <<ECONOMIA DELLA CULTURA>>, 2026; (1): 15-25 [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/348858]
IL RIPARTO DI COMPETENZE TRA STATO E REGIONI IN MATERIA DI BENI E ATTIVITÀ CULTURALI
Massa, Michele
2026
Abstract
Although Title V of Part II of the Italian Constitution contains a relatively detailed set of provisions concerning cultural heritage and cultural activities, the allocation of powers between the State and the Regions in these fields has been interpreted and applied in a far more nuanced, fragmented, and dynamic manner than the wording and structure of the constitutional text might initially suggest. This article offers some general reflections on the underlying causes of these interpretative difficulties and on the ways in which the Constitutional Court has addressed them. The overall outcome has been broadly centripetal, marked by a strong reaffirmation of the central role of the State in the field of protection in the strict sense, as defined by the Cultural Heritage Code. At the same time, this tendency has been partially tempered by an emphasis on the principle of loyal cooperation, and by cautious openings to more structured forms of regional intervention, particularly where they are aimed at the preservation of cultural heritage insufficiently addressed by state legislation.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.



