Short-term lettings: the Court of Cassation puts a stop to regional restrictions

The Regions may not impose any further restrictions, beyond those set out in the law, regarding the National Identification Code. On these grounds, the Constitutional Court has ruled that a provision of the Apulia regional law on short-term lettings is unlawful. This ruling, however, does not overturn the framework of the tourist letting system in the region.

More specifically, in Judgment 163/2026, the Constitutional Court ruled that the provision was unconstitutional; this provision, whilst regulating the Regional Identification Code (CIR) for accommodation facilities, stipulated that it was a prerequisite for obtaining the national code (CIN). In the Court’s view, this constitutes the introduction of ‘an additional burden on local operators’ which ‘conflicts with the exclusive state competence in matters of competition protection, as it may undermine the uniformity of market conditions at national level’. Instead, the state regulation must be complied with, which stipulates that the sole authorisation required is acquisition of the CIN as the sole authorisation. The Cir may be incorporated into the Cin but cannot constitute a mandatory step towards obtaining it.

However, the judgement also addresses other aspects. Indeed, the challenge regarding the regional provision which leaves intact the restrictions on changes of land use set out in town planning instruments was also upheld. This provision conflicts with the provisions of the Salva Casa scheme, which, on the contrary, facilitates changes of use.

The Court, referring to its previous judgment No. 61 of 2026, clarified that restrictions are distinct from conditions, which are permitted under state legislation, in that they have a greater impact on the right to property, thereby altering the balance established by the state legislature in matters of land-use planning. In the view of the Constitutional Court, the imposition of restrictions by town-planning instruments contravenes Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree 380/2001, the Consolidated Building Act, and therefore encroaches upon a state competence.

Finally, the regional provisions concerning concessions for water diversion for hydroelectric purposes were declared unconstitutional on the grounds that they infringed the State’s exclusive competence in matters of environmental protection; these provisions had removed the requirement for an opinion from theBasin Authority, as required by the relevant state legislation, and set the duration of the concession at fifteen years, contrary to state provisions which, on the other hand, allow the duration of the concession to be adjusted differently, depending on the circumstances.