How can European rules be transposed without reducing the Council to a mere formality? That question lay at the heart of the special committee for institutional reforms, which met on Friday, October 16, just days before the signing of the association agreement with the European Union, scheduled for Monday, October 19. The discussion touched not only on procedures but also on how much time councillors will need to devote to their mandate and whether government offices have the capacity to handle the workload.
Foreign Minister (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) Luca Beccari began from a key premise: “Under the association agreement, San Marino remains a third country and retains full legislative autonomy. What we are committing to is aligning our legal system with that of Europe, which does not mean subjugation.”
The government’s proposal is an annual law to plan the transposition process. The Council would decide which measures require ordinary debate and which can be handled through faster procedures, such as delegated decrees. “Simplifying or streamlining does not mean giving up prerogatives.” Beccari noted that the draft remains open to discussion with the various political groups.
The most contentious issue is dynamic transposition: a European rule is adopted together with any future amendments, without requiring San Marino to pass new legislation each time. The advantage is fewer procedural steps; the drawback is how much room is left for political decision-making. Beccari himself acknowledged this: “From the standpoint of regulatory simplification, it is certainly an excellent solution, but it undeniably affects the Council’s legislative authority — it is, in some sense, a limitation on its legislative capacity.” This approach is not essential for launching the agreement, he added, and it remains to be assessed whether it would require amending the Declaration of Citizens’ Rights.
Committee chairman Nicola Renzi said he would rather avoid automatic mechanisms, but first wants to assess the time and workload involved. “Turning Parliament into a mere rubber-stamping body would be demeaning, and we must try to avoid that.” He therefore proposed providing technical support to the political groups, capable of offering assessments independent of those produced by government departments. The model, he added, could evolve over time: “There’s nothing stopping us from starting with one approach and later moving to the other, if it becomes clear that’s necessary. What matters is being aware of that from the start.”
Giuseppe Maria Morganti (Libera) agreed with the idea of distinguishing procedures based on whether a measure is technical or political in nature. However, he asked how precise planning could realistically be achieved: “Will we already have the European measures that set out a timeline for deciding on procedures, or are we meant to anticipate what might happen and try to get ahead of discussions still taking shape in Europe?” On automatic updates, his position was unequivocal: “I have already stated my view on the crucial issue of dynamic alignment: I do not agree with it.”
Guerrino Zanotti (Libera) took a similar stance, preferring that each rule be examined individually. His concern is that adopting future amendments today could bind San Marino’s political system to changes it might later disagree with. “Dynamic transposition, in effect, ties your hands: it’s like signing a mortgage on the future across various areas and sectors.” Zanotti called for technical assistance for the groups and clarity on who will draft the annual plan. He also asked whether the intention to replace the bilateral convention with Italy on pensions and social security remains in place following the signing of the agreement and the transposition of EU regulations, and on what timeline.
But how much work will actually land on the Council’s desk? Paolo Crescentini (PSD) asked how many directives will need to be transposed each month, noting that the Council already struggles to get through its current agendas. “Will legislative activity therefore need to expand? Will we almost need to hold one Council session for measures coming from Europe and another for strictly domestic San Marino business?” The question goes to the heart of the councillors’ mandate: whether it can continue to be carried out under the current structure, or whether a different level of commitment will be required.
Iro Belluzzi (Libera) weighed the consequences of both approaches. Reviewing every update individually would increase the workload for both politicians and administrative staff: “Councillors would have no choice but to work solely as councillors, backed by a capable administrative structure.” Automatically adopting amendments, on the other hand, would require a stronger San Marino presence within the EU, to intervene while rules are still being drafted. “At that point you’re working at the source, trying to make your position heard at the moment a given regulation is being adopted.”
Mirko Dolcini (D-ML) raised questions about the ratification timeline and the country’s level of preparedness. Addressing Beccari directly, he observed: “You have done your part and put your signature to it, but perhaps the rest of the government and the majority have not, over these years, sufficiently focused on laying the necessary groundwork ahead of this moment.” He asked how the country could move quickly toward provisional application when rules, studies and training are still being prepared, and whether automatic transposition would require amending the Declaration of Rights. “My impression is that this major shift is being explained a little too slowly, and without sufficient depth.”
Emanuele Santi (Rete) also pressed for concrete figures: “To get a sense of scale, Minister, could you tell us roughly how many laws and how many subject areas we will need to address in this first phase?” Such an estimate, Santi argued, is needed to understand how the councillor’s role will change and what legislative measures should be prepared.
In his response, Beccari clarified that thousands of European acts do not translate into thousands of San Marino laws. Multiple provisions can be grouped into a single piece of legislation: “There isn’t necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between a European act and a San Marino act.” He committed to providing a table linking European rules to the corresponding domestic measures required, and announced a software tool, already being tested, to assign responsibilities and track the progress of the work.
On dynamic transposition, he urged a nuanced approach. Automatically updating technical standards — such as those on vehicle safety — could save procedural steps with no real downside. The situation is different for areas with significant political weight, such as public procurement. The choice, he reiterated, remains with the Council: “You always retain control over this choice — it is not the government that decides on its own what gets submitted for dynamic transposition.” The annual plan would set out delegations, procedures and deadlines, based on a government proposal preceded by impact assessments and consultation.
His tone sharpened when addressing criticism of San Marino’s European path: “If someone disagrees, they have my utmost respect. But it is better to say so openly, rather than hiding disagreement behind technicalities and then forcing others into the position of having to push back.”
On the matter of disputes, Beccari was clear: “We will not, on the other hand, find ourselves dealing with the so-called infringement procedure.” The agreement provides for a process of dialogue and conciliation, with recourse to the European Court of Justice as a last resort, safeguarding both parties — including San Marino’s citizens and businesses.
To support government offices, talks are currently underway with the European Commission. “They are working on a formula to make officials available to us as well — people who would come to San Marino on a stable basis for one, two or three years, helping us in the areas we consider most technically complex.” This support would focus primarily on organizing procedures, new registries and new regulatory authorities.
