Mattarella's Stop on the "Morandi Law": "It Discriminates Between Children of Cohabitants and Married Couples"

The President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, signed the bill (approved by the Chambers on March 20) that compensates the victims of the collapse of the Morandi bridge in Genoa but noted some "discriminations" in the provision that will need to be remedied. "I cannot shirk the duty to point out certain points that do not appear to be in line with the principles and norms of the Constitution," wrote Mattarella in the letter sent to the presidents of the Chamber and Senate, Lorenzo Fontana and Ignazio La Russa, and to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

«First of all, reservations arise - says the Head of State - about the limitation of the benefits provided to the sole hypothesis of "victims of harmful events resulting from total or partial collapses of road or motorway infrastructures of national importance". Apart from the interpretative uncertainty of the category of infrastructure "of national importance" which is not easy to determine, the exclusion of similar benefits in the case of victims of collapses of other roads is not reasonable and conflicts with the principle of equality under Article 3 of the Constitution ».

"The conformity with the principle of equality of the decision to limit the benefits to cases of road collapses also appears at least highly doubtful - he continues - Unfortunately, in the past, we have recorded victims caused by events related to structures of another nature, in particular the collapse of schools, first of all the case of the collapse of an elementary school with the death of many children present in the classrooms with their teachers. It is therefore not clear why every other similar unfortunate event is not taken into consideration: just think of hospitals, structures where sporting events or shows are held, structures of another kind".

But not only that, Mattarella also focuses on the recipients of the compensation: « In addition to these general observations, I would like to draw attention to some specific provisions of the law. With regard to Article 2, paragraph 4, letter b), I would like to underline that - despite the reference to "children, in the absence of a surviving spouse" - the text must necessarily be interpreted in the sense that the beneficiaries of the grant must be understood as all the children of each victim, including those from cohabitation or civil union relationships. Otherwise, there would be an unacceptable discrimination between the children of the victims on the basis of the marital status of the parents, in open conflict with Article 3 of the Constitution ».

Again: «Article 2, paragraph 4, in defining the order of priority for the attribution of the donation due to the relatives of the victims, in letter c), places the person permanently cohabiting or the other party to the civil union in third place, after having mentioned, in letter a), the spouse and, in letter b), the children. This placement appears discriminatory. Constitutional jurisprudence has consistently recognized the rights deriving from stable cohabitation and civil unions, as "relationships that have now entered into use", "commonly accepted alongside those based on the marital bond" and recognized by law (judgments no. 8 of 1996, no. 140 of 2009, no. 213 of 2016, nos. 10 and 148 of 2024), affirming that de facto cohabitants and parties to civil unions - understood as "two adults united in a stable manner by emotional bonds of a couple and mutual moral and material assistance" - must be recognized the same patrimonial and participatory prerogatives of the spouse, under penalty of constitutional illegitimacy, due to violation of Article 3 of the Constitution, of the rules that differentiate the aforementioned relationships without adequate, proven and reasonable motivation.

As for Article 2, paragraph 5, "for the purpose of attributing the grant, it equates the stable cohabitant to the spouse only in the case in which there are minor children born from the cohabitation relationship. The provision does not appear to take into account the constitutional jurisprudence, just indicated, which requires the equivalence even in the absence of minor children. Furthermore , the failure to equate the civil union partner to the spouse is unreasonable, even though the legal system recognizes greater protection than the stable cohabitant. Article 4 delegates to secondary provisions the task of identifying the harmful events - present and future - as well as the subjects entitled to the expected economic benefits, attributing to these sources a wide margin of discretion. This provision does not appear to be in line with the constitutional system".

"Finally , it should be considered that the law is financed through commitment limits - 7.1 million for 2025 and 1.6 million starting from 2026 - and the availability of limited resources makes the exercise of the aforementioned discretion even more problematic in order to guarantee the satisfaction of rights . I therefore address - concludes Mattarella - the invitation to Parliament and the Government to carefully consider the aforementioned findings and to evaluate supplementary and corrective interventions".

(Online Union)