Two million euros for the state’s defence in the international arbitration linked to the so-called “Bulgarian case.” The allocation has entered the debate over the 2026 budget variance, sparking a heated exchange in the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale).
The government has clarified that the sum is meant to cover defence costs and that the actual expenditure could turn out to be lower. The opposition, meanwhile, is raising questions about money already spent, the possibility of recovering it, and the political responsibilities behind the affair.
Secretary of State for Finance Marco Gatti explained that the €2 million figure represents a cautious estimate.
Based on the quotes received so far, the final cost could be lower. The government is awaiting further exchanges between the parties to determine whether those who initiated the arbitration intend to proceed after reviewing San Marino’s arguments.
Gatti ruled out any state liability, maintaining that the dispute concerns two private parties.
It is precisely on this point that one of the main objections centres. Sara Conti (RF) pointed out that the Republic itself is named in the arbitration, meaning its defence inevitably comes at a cost to public finances. The issue raised by the opposition is a concrete one: why should taxpayers bear this expense, and what are the chances of recovering the money?
Enrico Carattoni (RF) asked whether the €2 million has already been spent or is simply being held in reserve, and who might eventually be able to reimburse it. The distinction matters for the final accounting: the allocation shows how much the state expects it might need to use, but it remains unclear how much will actually leave public coffers.
Nicola Renzi (RF) objected to the idea that the costs of the arbitration should fall on citizens without any discussion of political accountability. Urging the government to keep tighter control over spending, he said: “That money, precisely because it belongs to everyone, must be spent wisely.”
Doubts have also emerged within the majority. Giuseppe Maria Morganti (Libera) described the provision for the defence as a heavy burden: “Frankly, it’s a boulder weighing on our heads because of mistaken judgments and mistaken choices.” He expressed hope that a solution could be found to avoid further expenditure.
Gaetano Troina (D-ML) referred to the €2 million set aside for the arbitration costs in Washington, linking the bill to the struggles of citizens already grappling with taxes and bills. “Why must it always be the public that pays for the mistakes made by politics?” he asked, calling for those responsible to be held accountable — rather than simply answering for it at the ballot box.
