Avellino mayor Nello Pizza has publicly endorsed an appeal against differentiated autonomy and said he will bring a related policy address before the municipal council.
The position was reported by IrpiniaNews and AvellinoToday. According to those local reports, Pizza argues the reform risks entrenching territorial inequalities rather than reducing them, summarized in his appeal to an Italy "una e indivisibile" — one and indivisible.
The proposed council initiative is intended to seek broad support from both governing and opposition councillors. It is connected to an initiative promoted by the Regions before the Constitutional Court.
Why Pizza links the issue to Irpinia
Pizza links the national debate to conditions in inland Irpinia, particularly unequal access to essential services and opportunities.
The issues he cites include healthcare, schools, transport and mobility, wage differences, youth migration, and everyday access to services for inland communities. For Avellino, the argument is that differentiated autonomy should be judged by whether it narrows those gaps or makes them permanent.
That local framing is central to his planned address to the council: Avellino, as a provincial capital in an inland area, would have direct experience of the disparities the reform is supposed to address.
What differentiated autonomy is
Law 86/2024 is the statutory framework for implementing differentiated autonomy for ordinary regions under Article 116, paragraph 3, of the Italian Constitution.
In general terms, it sets the procedure by which regions with ordinary statutes can request additional legislative and administrative functions from the state. The law itself states that implementation must respect national unity and address unequal access to essential services.
National unity, solidarity, equality of rights, and guarantees for essential services are therefore not only political arguments in the debate. They are constitutional constraints identified in the authoritative sources governing differentiated autonomy.
What the Constitutional Court decided
The Constitutional Court did not invalidate Law 86/2024 in its entirety.
In judgment 192/2024, the Court found the overall enabling framework lawful but declared several provisions unconstitutional or subject to constitutionally oriented interpretation. In particular, the Court held that transfers of autonomy must concern specific legislative or administrative functions and be justified through the principle of subsidiarity, rather than being based simply on entire subject areas.
The judgment also found problems with transfer mechanisms framed too broadly and with rules insufficiently tied to subsidiarity. The result is a more qualified legal picture than outright approval or rejection: the framework remains, but key operational parts were struck down or limited.
Some local commentary has described the Court's earlier intervention in stronger terms. The official judgment supports a narrower description: partial invalidation and constitutional limits, not removal of the law as a whole.
What happens next in Avellino
The next step announced by Pizza is a policy address in the Avellino municipal council.
The scheduling, final wording, and outcome of that address are not yet established in the available sources. What is established is its aim: to place Avellino on record in the wider institutional debate and to seek convergence between majority and opposition at the local level.
For readers following the issue locally, two points are worth watching. The first is whether the council approves a common text and what commitments that text contains. The second is how any Avellino position connects to the Regions' initiative before the Constitutional Court, which is the institutional channel cited by the local reports.
In that sense, Pizza's move is both symbolic and procedural: a statement about territorial fairness, paired with an attempt to give it formal weight through a council vote.
