After five years of waiting, the bill on public quiet in historic centres and residential areas stalls in Committee: article 1 was voted down, with three in favour and seven against. The majority passed an agenda item (Ordine del Giorno) postponing the whole matter to a working table, with a deadline of December 31. RETE refused to vote for it: «It’s a mere postponement».
The journey of the citizens’ initiative law for the protection of public quiet in historic centres and residential areas has ended in withdrawal, after arriving this morning before the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, five years after the signature-gathering campaign began.
The bill’s promoter, Simona Capicchioni, retraced those five years, denouncing what she called fragmented legislation that, in her view, fails to guarantee effective controls and penalties. The text aimed to regulate noise limits, opening hours, duration and rotation of events, backed by an acoustic impact assessment and a defined sanctions system.
«We need to guarantee the right to peace, rest and the normal conduct of business activities,» Capicchioni argued, calling for a balance between economic needs and the protection of residents and visitors.
The Government’s proposal: a working table, not a law
The Secretary of State for Internal Affairs, Andrea Belluzzi, acknowledged the seriousness of the problem but questioned the effectiveness of an isolated legislative measure.
According to Belluzzi, the issue should be tackled through comprehensive regulation of historic centres covering not only public quiet but also restricted traffic zones (ZTL), parking, road access, accessibility, waste management and event organisation. Hence his proposal for a multilateral working table, coordinated together with the Captain of Castle of San Marino City, along with the other Castle Councils (Giunte di Castello), the relevant Secretariats and stakeholders.
The Secretary also proposed strengthening the powers of law enforcement, allowing officers to immediately suspend events in cases of violations.
Positions then diverged. Carlotta Andruccioli (Domani Motus Liberi) said she largely agreed with the bill’s approach, suggesting adjustments regarding amplifiers and a graduated system of penalties, but warned that the working table must not become a way of «kicking the ball forward». Barbara Bollini (PDCS), drawing on her experience as Captain of Castle of Borgo Maggiore, instead argued in favour of updating existing rules.
Giuseppe Maria Morganti (Libera) agreed on the need for comprehensive regulation, with attention to decibel thresholds and the ZTL. Ilaria Bacciocchi (PSD) suggested the route of the agenda item. Maria Katia Savoretti (Repubblica Futura), while confirming her support for the bill, asked that the working table not become «a pretext to buy time and delay decisions». Maria Luisa Berti (Alleanza Riformista) said the agenda item was a workable solution, provided strict deadlines were set and the new rules were operational before next spring and summer.
In her closing remarks, Capicchioni reiterated the seriousness of the noise excesses, citing examples not only from the historic centre but also from Dogana, Serravalle and other parts of the country. She made clear she was not opposed to social life or events themselves, but rather «exclusively to uncontrolled excesses».
The agenda item and the rift
After a break in proceedings, the majority presented an agenda item (Ordine del Giorno) committing the Congress of State and the Secretariat for Internal Affairs to set up the multilateral working table and to reach, by December 31, 2026, a comprehensive framework covering closure ordinances, event permits, ZTL and the protection of public quiet.
The working table will include Castle Councils, relevant Secretariats, police forces, public offices, residents, business associations and event organisers. The promoters of the citizens’ bill were granted a permanent role in the process. The document was approved by majority vote.
It was here that the clash erupted. Emanuele Santi explained why RETE neither signed nor voted for the document: years after the bill was filed, «politics must have the courage to give clear and definitive answers», and choosing a working table amounts to «a mere postponement».
Berti rejected the accusation, pointing out that the agenda item does include a precise deadline. Belluzzi denied any intention to stall, describing the document as a «binding institutional mandate and commitment» for the Government.
The vote and the withdrawal
Article 1 of the bill was then rejected, with three votes in favour and seven against.
Faced with this outcome, Capicchioni announced she would not proceed with the examination of the remaining articles and formally withdrew the bill, while still defending the value of tools of popular participation and calling for the process that had begun to now find a concrete follow-up.
Addressing the bill’s promoters, Belluzzi stressed that their mobilisation «has by no means been in vain», recalling the commitment made by the Government and the role granted to the committee within the future working table.
The Committee’s proceedings were suspended shortly after 1pm and resumed at 2:30pm.
