Items to be marked after killing
As announced in May, reports are pouring in due to the omitted signature of the heads: in fact, there are many hunters who believe they can mark the migratory heads at the harvest or worse at the end of the day, convinced by an incorrect interpretation of the sentences of the Constitutional Court, which for this specific topic are even three. Let's clarify: the national law says in no uncertain terms that the leaders must be marked immediately after the killing and therefore, where the Court has deemed the regional law legitimate, it is because they are interpreted in the sense of the immediacy of the signature after the killing. The sentences of the Constitutional Court are 3: the 249/2019 on the law of the Marche Region; the sentence 291/2019 on the law of the Lombardy Region; the sentence 126/2022 on the law of the Lombardy Region. In judging the law of the Marche Region, the Constitutional Court clarified a "general principle": the heads actually killed must be marked, which means, the Court explained, that if the hunter is certain of the killing he must immediately score, if he has doubts must ascertain the actual killing of the leader "immediately after shooting".
The judgments of the Court
This is a "general principle" of interpretation of state law and all regional laws deemed legitimate. In judging the Lombard Law of 2018 which prescribed the signature "after the killing AND the recovery occurred", the Court held the rule illegitimate as the conjunction "E" meant that the items could be marked after the collection even much later the killing or that even the heads of which it was safe to be killed but which could not be recovered for various reasons could not be marked. The defense of the Region argued that the law also required the marking of heads found dead and of which the killing was unknown, in addition to the obligation to immediately mark the heads certainly killed. And the Court said that to have that meaning, the rule had to be written with an "O" and not an "E". The Region has therefore modified the law as it is today, which prescribes the signature “after killing OR recovery has taken place”. In judging it, the Court established that the rule must be interpreted taking into account the findings of the 2019 sentence "and must be correctly understood in the sense that the annotation must always be made immediately after the killing, except in cases where the certainty of killing itself, even by third parties, only takes place at the time of recovery ".
In practical terms
All this, in light of the principle expressed in relation to the general interpretation of the norm on signature (Marche judgment), means that:
the hunter must immediately mark the killed animals (immediately after the shot);
the hunter who doubts that he has killed his prey, must ascertain the killing immediately after the shot and then, having recovered the head, mark it immediately (and certainly not at the end of the day)
the signature at the time of recovery after some time from the shot (maybe hours) can only concern garments recovered and of which the killing was unknown, even if only in mere doubt, as in the (remote) case in which more leaders of those who were shot, perhaps because they were shot down by third parties ...
It is evident that the possibility of legitimately marking the garments for collection is a completely extraordinary fact and limited to exceptional cases.
This is it: those who have listened to political reassurances or improvised jurists can only hope that the minutes will be canceled in the face of a rule that has only created confusion. Then everyone can listen to whoever they want, but know that in order to be in good standing, the leaders must be marked immediately after the killing even in Lombardy, especially according to the Constitutional Court, except in exceptional cases (source: FIDC Brescia - Cacciapensieri).