Logo law and pluralism
Logo Università Bicocca

Italian Constitutional Court (Corte costituzionale), No. 115/2025, 21 july 2025

Date
21/07/2025
Type Judgment
Case number 115/2025

Abstract

The Italian law protecting motherhood and fatherhood, ensuring equal treatment in employment and working conditions, and balancing professional and family life, violates the principle of substantive equality.

Normative references

Art. 3 Italian Constitution

Art. 27-bis Consolidated Law on the protection and support of motherhood and fatherhood of 26 March 2001, no. 151

Art. 32 Consolidated Law on the protection and support of motherhood and fatherhood of 26 March 2001, no. 151

Art. 2, paragraph 1, letter c), Legislative Decree implementing Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers of 30 June 2022, no. 105

Ruling

1. Article 27-bis of Legislative Decree 151/2001 is constitutionally unlawful insofar as it does not recognise compulsory paternity leave for a female worker who is the social parent in a female couple registered as parents in the civil registry.

2. Sexual orientation does not in itself affect suitability for assuming such responsibility, and it is in the child's best interests to be recognised as the child of their biological and intended mother, who have assumed and shared parental responsibility through the use of medically assisted reproduction techniques lawfully practised abroad.

3. The appellant complained about the discriminatory conduct of the National Social Security Institute (INPS) for adopting an IT procedure that did not allow same-sex couples, recognised in the civil registry, to submit an online application to take advantage of parental leave, rest periods and allowances provided for by Legislative Decree No. 151 of 2001. The INPS subsequently modified the IT platform, allowing each parent to apply for parental leave under Article 32 of Legislative Decree No. 151 of 2001. However, the appellant complained that the court of first instance had merely ordered INPS to modify the system without affirming the right of same-sex couples recognised in the civil registry to take leave on an equal footing with heterosexual couples.