JUDGMENT NO. 164
YEAR 2026
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
composed of:
President: Giovanni AMOROSO;
Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has delivered the following
JUDGMENT
in proceedings concerning the constitutionality review of Articles 4 and 5 of Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 10 of 19 December 2025 (Regulations concerning real estate units intended for short-term rental in Emilia-Romagna), brought by the President of the Council of Ministers by means of an appeal notified and filed with the registry on 16 February 2026, registered under No. 2 of the appeals register of 2026 and published in the Official Journal of the Republic No. 9, 1st special series, for the year 2026.
Having regard to the appearance in the proceedings of the Region of Emilia-Romagna;
having heard, at the public hearing of 7 July 2026, Judge Rapporteur Giovanni Pitruzzella;
having heard State Counsel Giorgio Santini for the President of the Council of Ministers and Attorney Andrea Pertici for the Region of Emilia-Romagna;
having deliberated in chambers on 7 July 2026.
Ritenuto in fatto (The Proceedings)
1.– By means of the appeal indicated in the heading, the President of the Council of Ministers challenged Articles 4 and 5 of Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 10 of 19 December 2025 (Regulations concerning real estate units intended for short-term rental in Emilia-Romagna).
Article 4, paragraph 1, provides that, "[p]ursuant to Article 28, paragraph 4, of Regional Law No. 15 of 30 July 2013 (Simplification of building regulations), within the functional category of tourist-accommodation use referred to in Article 28, paragraph 3, letter b), the specific urban planning intended use designated as short-term rental is identified," and that "[a] change of use, with or without building works, of a real estate unit from a different functional category towards the short-term rental use is relevant from an urban planning and building perspective and is subject to the submission of the building permits provided for by the subsequent Article 7."
Article 5, paragraph 1, provides that, "[f]or the general interest purposes referred to in Article 2, Municipalities may identify, within their urban planning instruments, specific areas of the municipal territory in which the establishment of the short-term rental intended use is permitted or subject to compliance with specific conditions." Paragraph 2 defines the criteria that must guide the identification of the areas referred to in paragraph 1, and paragraph 3 establishes that, "[p]ursuant to Article 28, paragraph 2, of Regional Law No. 15 of 2013, specific conditions for the establishment of the short-term rental use shall mean objective criteria established in the technical implementing rules, supported by adequate motivation set forth in the ValSAT [Strategic Environmental and Territorial Valuation] document or in other documents of the planning instrument." Paragraph 5 sets out, "by way of example," certain conditions that may be introduced by municipalities.
According to the appellant, these provisions infringe Articles 3, 41, 42, 117, second paragraph, letters e) and m), and third paragraph, and 118 of the Constitution.
1.1.– Firstly, Articles 4 and 5 of Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 10 of 2025 allegedly run "counter to the protection of private property, freedom of enterprise, and competition," which Articles 41, 42, and 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution entrust to the exclusive legislative competence of the State.
In particular, Article 4, by establishing the requirement for a building permit for the change of use towards short-term rental, would introduce an "authorisation scheme" pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 1, number 6), of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, and would have "a direct and significant effect on market access": the decision whether or not to introduce such restrictive rules falls within the sphere of the protection of competition, which is under the exclusive legislative competence of the State pursuant to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution.
Article 5 allegedly infringes Articles 41, 42, and 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution insofar as the municipal shaping power introduced thereby would alter "natural competition in the short-term rental market," potentially "precluding certain owners or entrepreneurs from offering the properties they own to tenants." This would result in "a clear and undue [...] compression of real estate ownership rights," "a severe limitation of the freedom of enterprise and, above all, an unjustified distortion of competition," where the rental constitutes business activity.
1.2.– By the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges the infringement of Articles 3, 41, and 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution. Articles 4 and 5 would cause an "alteration of competition" and inequality of treatment among entrepreneurs in both the product market and the geographic market. As regards the former, Articles 4 and 5 would distort competition between short-term rental operators, who are the sole addressees of the restrictive rules in question, and operators of different tourist accommodation facilities, primarily hotels. As regards the geographic market, Article 5 would restrict competition between short-term rental operators in different areas of the same municipality or in different municipalities. Furthermore, the "new land registry reclassification" provided for by Article 4 would be equivalent to a "second registration," additional to that referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1028 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the collection and sharing of data relating to short-term accommodation rental services and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724. This would constitute "a de facto impediment" for the operator and a market restriction.
1.3.– By the third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges the infringement of Article 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, which reserves to the State's legislative competence the "determination of the essential levels of performance concerning civil and social rights to be guaranteed throughout the national territory."
In particular, Article 5, paragraph 5, of Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 10 of 2025 – which allows municipalities to: "a) establish, for each area, the maximum percentage of residential real estate units that may be allocated to short-term rentals"; "b) limit or prohibit building interventions [...] that accompany the replacement of the existing use with the short-term rental use"; "c) define dimensional requirements and quality standards, additional to the minimums indicated in Article 6, which properties and real estate units intended for short-term rental must possess"; "d) make the change of use towards short-term rental conditional upon the existence or creation of territorial and appurtenant facilities, also for the purpose of offsetting any greater urban planning burden produced by this use in existing urban fabrics" – would intervene in a sphere reserved to the State legislator, which should "introduce harmonising legislation balancing the interests of both those offering properties on the market for short-term rental and the users of such service," who might find themselves barred from staying in certain locations and, in any case, be forced to pay higher rental fees or resort to more expensive substitute services (such as hotels).
1.4.– By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges the infringement of Articles 3 and 117, second and third paragraphs, of the Constitution, the latter in relation to Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 6 June 2001, bearing "Consolidated text of legislative and regulatory provisions concerning building matters. (Text A)."
Article 23-ter, paragraph 1, provides that, "[s]ubject to different provisions by regional laws, any form of use of the building or single real estate unit other than the original one, even if not accompanied by the execution of building works, shall constitute a relevant change of intended use, provided that it entails the assignment of the considered building or real estate unit to a different functional category among those listed below: a) residential; a-bis) tourist-accommodation; b) productive and executive; c) commercial; d) rural." Pursuant to paragraph 1-ter, "the change of intended use between the functional categories referred to in paragraph 1, letters a), a-bis), b), and c), of a single real estate unit located in buildings comprised within zones A), B), and C) referred to in Article 2 of the Decree of the Minister of Public Works No. 1444 of 2 April 1968, or in equivalent zones as defined by relevant regional laws, is always permitted," in compliance with the conditions referred to in paragraph 1-quater and sectoral regulations, and without prejudice to the possibility for municipal urban planning instruments to set specific conditions. Paragraph 1-quater establishes that, "[i]n the cases referred to in paragraph 1-ter, the change of intended use is not subject to the obligation to find additional areas for services of general interest provided for by the Decree of the Minister of Public Works No. 1444 of 2 April 1968 and by regional law provisions, nor to the constraint of the minimum mandatory parking provision [...]"
Articles 4, paragraphs 1 and 2, and 5, paragraph 5, letters a), b), and d), of Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 10 of 2025 allegedly infringe the aforementioned Article 23-ter because this provision would allow municipalities to introduce "specific conditions" for the change of intended use, to be verified in relation to individual requests, rather than introducing "limitations" that "can tout court ex ante prevent short-term rentals" in certain areas. The State rule aims to guarantee municipalities "targeted tools of intervention," whilst "generalized and automatic prohibitions on carrying out building interventions functional to a change of intended use" are excluded. In this manner, municipal decisions would respect the limits of proportionality and reasonableness. In particular, the aforementioned Article 5, paragraph 5, letter d), would infringe the cited Article 23-ter, paragraph 1-quater, by allowing municipalities to reintroduce those "standard-provision burdens" that the State law had excluded.
Article 5, paragraph 5, would also infringe Article 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, inasmuch as Article 23-ter was introduced in the exercise of that competence. This would occur, in particular, with regard to Article 5, paragraph 5, letter d), since the exclusion of the obligation to procure standards for changes of use of single real estate units constitutes an essential level of performance concerning the right of land property and economic initiative. The same provision, by providing for "an unjustified procedural and economic burden," would result in "an inequality of treatment infringing the principle of equality, in violation of Article 3 of the Constitution."
Finally, Article 5, paragraph 5, by indicating limitations (that may be introduced by municipalities) "by way of mere example and not exhaustively," would allow local authorities "to compress freedom of enterprise by adopting measures of any scope and intrusiveness, in violation of the canons of proportionality and reasonableness and furthermore contrary to Article 3 of the Constitution, compromising the necessary uniformity of property rights throughout the national territory."
1.5.– By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges the infringement of Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution.
Article 4, paragraph 1, of the challenged regional law, insofar as it identifies "within the tourist-accommodation functional category [...] the specific urban planning intended use designated as short-term rental," would infringe Article 3 of the Constitution because it constitutes a "manifestly unreasonable and disproportionate" choice. "Short-term and tourist rentals" would be distinguished from all other forms of rental solely by their limited duration (less than 30 days) or by the subjective purpose pursued by the tenant, but there would be no "real difference" compared to residential rentals, given that in short-term rentals the owner provides no particular service. Therefore, the more favourable regime, from the perspective of urban planning and change of intended use, granted to residential rentals would not be justified. Furthermore, in the event that the owner decides to rent out their property for tourist purposes only for part of the year, reserving it for themselves for the remaining period, they would be "unreasonably forced to undergo no less than two or more changes of intended use that are burdensome, both economically and in terms of administrative burdens."
Moreover, Article 5 of the same regional law, by harming "freedom of enterprise and natural competition in the rental market," would enact provisions "manifestly disproportionate to the purported purposes listed in Article 2 of the same regional law." Article 5 would allow the introduction of measures "of any scope and intrusiveness," inspired by the protection of a single interest or group of allied public interests, "thus neglecting balancing with other no less important public interests and with those of the private parties affected." Municipal determinations would prejudice the interests of landlords and tourists and also the public interest, given that short-term rentals increase the wealth of the territory and tax revenues. Hence the infringement of Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution.
1.6.– By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges the infringement of the principle of subsidiarity referred to in Article 118 of the Constitution.
The regulation of short-term rentals would require uniform intervention by the State legislator, capable of satisfying "inescapable needs for the protection of an asset, such as the protection of competition and the determination of minimum essential levels, both having a unitary character and primary value." This would be frustrated "if Regions were left to indiscriminately entrust the handling to a territorial entity of lesser dimensions such as the Municipality." Therefore, Articles 4 and 5 of the challenged regional law would infringe Article 118 of the Constitution.
2.– By a brief filed on 18 March 2026, the Region of Emilia-Romagna entered an appearance in the proceedings.
With reference to the first ground of appeal, the respondent firstly raises an objection of inadmissibility regarding the issues concerning Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution, due to insufficient reasoning.
All the challenges would, in any event, be unfounded because Articles 4 and 5 of Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No. 10 of 2025 fall within matters of regional legislative competence (tourism and territorial governance: reference is made to judgments of this Court No. 186 of 2025 and No. 94 of 2024). Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution would not be infringed because they admit limits aimed at protecting public interests: the challenged provisions are directed at reducing the negative effects of overtourism. Article 4 would not alter competition but would render it "fairer," distinguishing short-term rentals from other property uses. Nor would Article 5 harm competition: such an effect was excluded, in relation to similar provisions, by judgment No. 186 of 2025 of this Court and by the judgment of the Council of State, Section IV, 20 March 2019, No. 1831.
The second ground of appeal would also be unfounded. The Region reiterates that the challenged provisions fall within the matters of tourism and territorial governance and observes that regions are "more suitable" to regulate short-term rentals, being able to take "territorial specificities" into account. Articles 4 and 5 would not create an unjustified inequality of treatment: the different intended use acknowledges the difference between short-term rentals and housing rentals, whilst Article 5 responds to "needs for the rationalisation of the territory." The differentiation between properties located in the same municipality is consistent with planning requirements, which must take territorial specificities into account, in compliance with the purpose of autonomy. Any unreasonable restrictions (imposed by a municipality) would be challengeable before the administrative court.
As regards the third ground of appeal (infringement of Article 117, second paragraph, letter m, of the Constitution), the Region considers it untenable in light of judgment No. 186 of 2025 of this Court, which states that "the allocation of a residential property to tourist rental cannot be considered an essential element of the property right." The Region further observes that, on the one hand, the State legislator has not expressly identified "essential levels of performance concerning civil or social rights" in the field of short-term rentals, and on the other hand, it is not easy to qualify the subjective legal situations of short-term rental service users in terms of "civil or social rights."
The fourth ground of appeal would likewise be unfounded. The aforementioned Article 23-ter, paragraph 1-ter, of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001 does not enshrine "an unconditional right of the owner," but is "an expression of relative liberalization, aimed at overcoming rigid typological constraints, without however excluding the possibility of shaping the activity through conditions and limits." The reference in Article 23-ter, paragraph 1-ter, to "the possibility for municipal urban planning instruments to set specific conditions" for the change of intended use should not be reduced to technical rules, and may encompass "circumscribed and proportionate prohibitions." Such an interpretation is necessary as being "constitutionally oriented": the thesis maintained in the appeal would produce a "constitutionally problematic effect, as it would end up unjustifiably compressing regional and local competences in the matter of 'territorial governance'" and the "fundamental public interests" harmed by overtourism. Furthermore, it would not be reconcilable with judgment No. 186 of 2025.
The Region then makes considerations regarding the various provisions set forth in Article 5, paragraph 5, of the challenged regional law. The challenge concerning letter a) would be inadmissible for generality and, in any event, unfounded, since a similar provision had already been endorsed by judgment No. 186 of 2025. As for letter b), the respondent points out that municipalities are not conferred arbitrary power, since they must abide by Article 5, paragraph 3, of the challenged regional law. Regarding letter d), the Region observes that Article 23-ter, paragraph 1-quater, does not identify an essential level of performance and that the "specific conditions" referred to in the State provision include "also any limitations regarding the obligation incumbent upon owners to create territorial and appurtenant facilities." Moreover, these would not necessarily coincide with urban planning standards in the strict sense, and could "also include compensatory measures or functional solutions suitable for mitigating the impact of the establishment of the short-term rental."
The fifth ground of appeal would also be unfounded. The challenged Article 4, in identifying a specific "short-term rental" intended use, is not unreasonable. According to the Region, the difference between short-term rentals and other rentals cannot be minimized, given that the former produce overtourism, with consequent "more cleaning, greater use of services, public establishments, commercial activities, greater presence on streets and transport and so on."
Finally, the sixth ground is also unfounded. The Region recalls judgment No. 186 of 2025, which states that "[t]he regional and local levels [...] are generally more adequate for adopting administrative regulations aimed at reconciling the interests of owners and users with opposing ones (of a social and urban planning nature)." In the matter of short-term rentals, "territorial specificities" emerge that require differentiated regulations.
3.– On 24 March 2026, the Host + Host association filed a written opinion pursuant to Article 6 of the Supplementary Rules for Proceedings before the Constitutional Court. Such opinion was admitted by presidential decree of 28 May 2026.
The association criticizes the increasingly fragmented and inhomogeneous regulatory framework regarding short-term rentals and observes that the challenged rules are not accompanied by any empirical data or quantitative analysis capable of demonstrating the existence of the critical issues they intend to address. The challenged Article 5 contemplates "a distorted use of territorial planning power as an instrument for regulating the rental market."
4.– On 16 June 2026, both the President of the Council of Ministers and the Region of Emilia-Romagna filed supplementary briefs.
The appellant reiterates its criticisms, observing, inter alia, that this Court did not rule on the issue of the protection of competition in judgments No. 94 of 2024 and No. 186 of 2025. In relation to the fourth ground, the State Attorney's Office invokes judgment No. 61 of 2026 of this Court, which distinguished between "conditions" and "limitations" on changes of intended use.
For its part, the Region points out that the regional intervention became necessary to protect the right to housing and sets forth further considerations regarding the various grounds of appeal. With particular reference to the fourth ground of appeal, the respondent argues non-foundation taking into account judgment No. 61 of 2026 of this Court and the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court for Tuscany, Section I, 14 May 2026, No. 916, and observes that Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001 "must in our case receive a constitutionally oriented interpretation that considers the peculiarities of short-term rentals."
Considerato in diritto (Law)
5.– By the appeal indicated in the heading, the President of the Council of Ministers challenged Articles 4 and 5 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025, laying down regulations for properties intended for short-term rental.
Article 4, paragraph 1, provides that, "[p]ursuant to Article 28, paragraph 4, of regional law of 30 July 2013, n. 15 (Simplification of building regulations), within the functional category of tourist-accommodation use referred to in Article 28, paragraph 3, letter b), the specific urban planning intended use designated as short-term rental is identified," and that "[t]he change of use, with or without building works, of a real estate unit from a different functional category towards the short-term rental use is relevant from an urban planning and building perspective and is subject to the submission of the building permits provided for by the subsequent Article 7."
Article 5, paragraph 1, provides that, "[f]or the general interest purposes referred to in Article 2, Municipalities may identify, within their urban planning instruments, specific areas of the municipal territory in which the establishment of the short-term rental intended use is permitted or subject to compliance with specific conditions." Paragraph 2 defines the criteria that must guide the identification of the areas referred to in paragraph 1, and paragraph 3 establishes that, "[p]ursuant to Article 28, paragraph 2, of regional law n. 15 of 2013, specific conditions for the establishment of the short-term rental use shall mean objective criteria established in the technical implementing rules, supported by adequate motivation set forth in the ValSAT document or in other documents of the planning instrument." Paragraph 5 indicates "by way of example" certain conditions that may be introduced by municipalities.
The appellant articulates six grounds of appeal, directed jointly at both of the provisions just mentioned; some of the grounds refer to a plurality of parameters. From the appeal it is nonetheless possible to derive the following issues.
Article 4 is challenged, firstly, for infringement of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, inasmuch as it would introduce an "authorisation scheme" pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 1, number 6), of Directive 2006/123/EC; the provision for the change of intended use would entail "significant market restrictions." Furthermore, Article 4 would infringe Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution, as it would entail a disparity of treatment among entrepreneurs in the product market (between short-term rental operators and operators of different tourist accommodation facilities) and would contemplate a "second registration" restricting the market. Finally, Article 4 would infringe Article 3 of the Constitution, given that there would be no "real difference" between short-term rentals and residential rentals.
The following challenges are directed against Article 5 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025. It allegedly infringes: a) Articles 3, 41, 42, and 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, because it would entail a limitation of the right of property and freedom of enterprise, an "alteration of competition" and inequality of treatment among entrepreneurs in both the product market (between short-term rental operators and operators of different tourist accommodation facilities) and the geographic market (between short-term rental operators in different areas of the same municipality or in different municipalities); b) Article 117, second paragraph, letter m), of the Constitution, insofar as paragraph 5 intervenes in a sphere reserved to the State legislator, which should "introduce harmonising legislation balancing the interests of both those offering properties on the market for short-term rental and the users of such service"; c) in its paragraph 5, Articles 3, 117, second paragraph, letter m), and third paragraph, of the Constitution, the latter in relation to Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001, because this provision would allow municipalities to introduce "specific conditions" for the change of intended use, to be verified in relation to individual requests, rather than introducing "limitations" that "can tout court ex ante prevent short-term rentals" in certain areas; d) Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution, by allowing the introduction of measures "of any scope and intrusiveness," inspired by the protection of a single interest or group of allied public interests, "thus neglecting balancing with other no less important public interests and with those of the private parties affected"; e) Article 118 of the Constitution, since the regulation of short-term rentals would require uniform intervention by the State legislator.
6.– Firstly, it is appropriate to outline the content of the challenged provisions.
Regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025 is aimed at laying down the "urban-planning and building regulations applicable to real estate units subject to short-term rental contracts" (Article 1, paragraph 1). This is defined, taking into account State rules (Article 4, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 50 of 24 April 2017, bearing "Urgent financial provisions, initiatives in favor of territorial entities, further interventions for areas affected by seismic events and measures for development," converted, with amendments, into Law No. 96 of 21 June 2017; Article 13-ter of Decree-Law No. 145 of 18 October 2023, bearing "Urgent measures in economic and fiscal matters, in favor of territorial entities, for the protection of labor and for indifferentiable needs," converted, with amendments, into Law No. 191 of 15 December 2023), as "rental of a duration not exceeding thirty days, concluded [...] also in the exercise of business activity, directly or through subjects exercising real estate intermediation activities or entities managing telematic portals" (Article 1, paragraph 2, of the law in question).
The challenged regional law applies "to all real estate units that will be allocated, also following physical and functional transformations, to short-term rental contracts at a date subsequent to the entry into force of this law" (Article 3, paragraph 1).
Article 4, which is the first challenged provision, identifies – as seen – within the tourist-accommodation functional category "the specific urban planning intended use designated as short-term rental," establishing that "[t]he change of use, with or without building works, of a real estate unit from a different functional category towards the short-term rental use is relevant from an urban planning and building perspective and is subject to the submission of the building permits provided for by the subsequent Article 7." In concrete terms, this means that, for example, whoever wishes to use a second home, having a residential designation, for short-term rental purposes, must change its urban planning intended use and obtain the building permit referred to in Article 7, paragraph 1, of the law in question: if the transition to the "short-term rental" designation takes place with works, the "enabling permit provided for the building intervention to which it is connected" is required; if instead it takes place without works, the permit is directly identified in the certified report of commencement of activity (SCIA).
This is a choice that finds no counterpart in the legislation of other Italian regions.
For its part, the second challenged provision (Article 5 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025) establishes – as seen – that municipalities "may identify, within their urban planning instruments, specific areas of the municipal territory in which the establishment of the short-term rental intended use is permitted or subject to compliance with specific conditions" (paragraph 1). Paragraph 5 of Article 5 provides that, in areas where the establishment of such use is subject to specific conditions, municipalities "may, by way of non-exhaustive example: a) establish, for each area, the maximum percentage of residential real estate units that may be allocated to short-term rental. In historical centre areas where a situation of tourist overcrowding exists, the plan may also establish the maximum percentage of real estate units that may be allocated to short-term rental in buildings having predominantly residential use; b) limit or prohibit building interventions, such as subdivisions, demolitions and reconstructions, transformations of accessory surfaces into usable surfaces and recovery of attics, which accompany the replacement of the existing use with the short-term rental use. In such hypotheses, the change of use without works towards short-term rental is not permitted for the three years following the completion of the works; c) define dimensional requirements and quality standards, additional to the minimums indicated in Article 6, which properties and real estate units intended for short-term rental must possess; d) make the change of use towards short-term rental conditional upon the existence or creation of territorial and appurtenant facilities, also for the purpose of offsetting any greater urban planning burden produced by this use in existing urban fabrics."
In summary, regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025, on the one hand, also applies to non-tourist short-term rentals (although preparatory works clearly show that the real focus of the new rules was tourist short-term rentals), whilst on the other hand it does not apply to tourist rentals exceeding 30 days. Furthermore, it addresses both entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial short-term rentals.
As to the purposes pursued, they are defined by Articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2, of the regional law in question. Compared to the regulations of the Region of Tuscany, subject to judgment No. 186 of 2025 of this Court, the law now in question starts from the premise that short-term rentals are positive in certain contexts, increasing and diversifying accommodation capacity in less frequented areas, and negative in other contexts (essentially cities, especially university cities), causing a reduction and higher cost of apartments available for workers and students. The purpose of the challenged rules is to provide municipalities with the tools to contain tourist rentals in certain areas and to incentivize them in others (see Regional Executive Resolution No. 1700 of 20 October 2025, approving the bill, and the introductory report to the same bill); the second purpose emerges, in particular, in Articles 2, paragraph 1, letter b), and 5, paragraph 2, letter d), of the law in question. In fact, Article 5 does not address only provincial capital municipalities and those with the highest tourist density (thus Article 59 of regional law of Tuscany No. 61 of 31 December 2024, bearing "Consolidated text of tourism"), but all municipalities.
7.– The constitutional legitimacy questions raised can now be examined.
This Court deems it appropriate to assess as a matter of priority the challenges concerning the distribution of legislative competence (e.g., judgments No. 59 of 2024 and No. 120 of 2022), brought against both challenged provisions for infringement of Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, which assigns to the State exclusive legislative competence in the matter of the "protection of competition."
These questions are not founded.
7.1.– As regards Article 4 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025, this Court has already examined a regional legislative provision imposing the transition from the "permanent or main dwelling" destination to that of "temporary dwelling" in the event that the tourist use of the accommodation becomes prevalent, i.e., exceeding one hundred and eighty days per year (Articles 2 and 4, paragraph 1, letter f), of regional law of the Valle d'Aosta No. 11 of 18 July 2023, bearing "Regulations for administrative duties regarding short-term rentals for tourist purposes"). That provision had been challenged by the President of the Council of Ministers for infringement of State legislative competence in the matter of the civil legal system, but judgment No. 94 of 2024 dismissed the appeal, recognizing regional legislative competence to regulate the urban planning intended use of housing units used for tourist rentals: "[e]ven more evident is the impact of the strong growth of short tourist rentals on the concurrent regional legislative competence in the matter of territorial governance. [...] It follows that it falls within the competence of the regional legislator to intervene on the intended use of properties – in line with the fundamental principles laid down by the State legislator in Article 23-ter of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 6 June 2001" (point 3.1.2. of the Considerations in Law); according to this Court, the Valle d'Aosta rule established "the time limit beyond which the property object of the contract is deemed [...] allocated to a use different from the original one, legitimizing administrative interventions that [...] fall fully within regional competences" (point 3.1.3. of the Considerations in Law); the same provision "coherently fits into the framework of regional provisions whose exclusive horizon – which coincides with the sphere of competence – is that of governing urban transformations connected to the multiplication of short tourist rentals, with a view to protecting the territory and achieving its orderly planning" (again, point 3.1.3. of the Considerations in Law).
Therefore, the self-qualification of the regional law in question (Chapter II, including Article 4, is entitled "Urban-planning and building regulations for short-term rentals") is correct.
The appellant's argument, according to which Article 4 would infringe Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution by introducing a restriction on access to the tourist market, is not acceptable. Regions traditionally have legislative competence over changes of intended use, as recognized by Article 10, paragraph 2, of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001. Judgment No. 186 of 2025 reiterated that municipal functional zoning power (which can be regulated by regions in the exercise of concurrent legislative competence in the matter of "territorial governance") is "capable of limiting the economic initiative of owners" (point 2.2. of the Considerations in Law). Furthermore, the same ruling traced back to regional legislative competence certain rules concerning non-hotel accommodation structures and tourist rentals, even though they posed obstacles to market access: namely, Articles 42 to 45 of regional law of Tuscany No. 61 of 2024, which provide for management in an entrepreneurial form of non-hotel accommodation structures (see point 6.1. of the Considerations in Law), and Article 59 of the same Tuscan law, pursuant to which certain municipalities may, by means of their own regulations, limit the short-term tourist rental activity in certain areas (point 7.4. of the Considerations in Law).
As for the appellant's argument that Article 4 would introduce an "authorisation scheme" pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 1, number 6), of Directive 2006/123/EC, it can be noted that judgment No. 186 of 2025 clarified that, in matters entrusted to their competence, regions are not precluded from introducing authorizations in cases where the services directive permits them (again, point 7.4. of the Considerations in Law).
7.2.– As regards Article 5 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025, this Court – as already mentioned – ascribed to regional legislative competence in the matter of tourism and territorial governance Article 59 of regional law of Tuscany No. 61 of 2024, pursuant to which certain municipalities may, by means of their own regulations, limit short-term tourist rental activity (judgment No. 186 of 2025, point 7.4. of the Considerations in Law: "Article 59 lays down administrative regulations that predominantly intersect the matters of territorial governance and tourism, as it provides for a municipal regulatory power – which concerns a tourist-type economic activity and reflects on the territorial layout – and establishes a (potential) administrative authorization scheme").
Compared to the Tuscan provision, the challenged Article 5, in combination with Article 4, is markedly oriented towards the matter of "territorial governance," given that municipal regulation of short-term rentals must be inserted into "urban planning instruments" (Article 5, paragraph 1) and, pursuant to Article 4, verifications take place within the scope of controls on changes of intended use. In this case too, the regional legislator's self-qualification is correct, as Article 5 effectively has as its object the "[municipal] special urban-planning and building regulations compliance with which is a condition for the establishment of the short-term rental intended use," in specific areas of the municipal territory (paragraph 2). The four examples of possible municipal intervention indicated in paragraph 5 of Article 5 also fall within the matter of "territorial governance."
8.– By the second ground of appeal, Article 4 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025 was also challenged for infringement of Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution, as it would entail an inequality of treatment in the product market between short-term rental operators and operators of different tourist accommodation facilities, and would contemplate a "new land registry reclassification" restricting the market.
These questions are founded.
8.1.– By way of preliminary remark, it should be reiterated that the legislative competence of regions does not concern only "classified" accommodation structures but extends to tourist rentals (judgments No. 186 of 2025, No. 94 of 2024, and No. 84 of 2019). Such competence can be exercised through different paths: by adopting urban planning regulations, as in the case of the regional law now under examination, or also by contemplating regulatory and authorizing municipal powers not coinciding with those typical of the urban planning sector, as in the case of Article 59 of regional law of Tuscany No. 61 of 2024, subject of the repeatedly cited judgment No. 186 of 2025. In that ruling this Court observed that "the problems posed by short tourist rentals concentrate in certain areas of the territory and present different peculiarities in each of them. The regional and local levels, therefore, are generally more adequate for adopting administrative regulations aimed at reconciling the interests of owners and users with opposing ones (of a social and urban planning nature)" (point 7.3. of the Considerations in Law).
Regional regulations may translate into a compression of owners' economic initiative, into an interference in their free choices. In judgment No. 186 of 2025 it was recalled that "this Court has recognized that 'the regional legislator may well shape the powers pertaining to private parties' (judgment No. 175 of 2019), including the content of the property right (judgment No. 190 of 2001). After all, the limitation of owners' rights represents an intrinsic reflection of urban planning regulations" (point 6.1. of the Considerations in Law). It was also observed that "[t]he allocation of a residential property to tourist rental cannot be considered an essential element of the property right" (point 7.4. of the Considerations in Law).
Regional choices are, however, subject to a proportionality test, as they must pursue a worthy-of-protection interest, by means that are suitable, necessary, and proportionate (e.g., judgments No. 137, No. 127, and No. 10 of 2026, No. 143 and No. 109 of 2025, No. 113 of 2022).
In judgment No. 186 of 2025, this Court clarified that the aim of limiting overtourism is worthy of protection, because it has produced "a contraction of housing available for workers and out-of-town students, with a consequent inflationary effect on the cost of housing itself. Furthermore, overtourism can determine 'the urban transformation of entire neighborhoods and centers, with significant repercussions also on the management of local public services' (judgment No. 94 of 2024)." This Court reached this conclusion also taking into account the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber, judgment of 22 September 2020, joined cases C-724/18 and C-727/18, Cali Apartments, point 75), Regulation (EU) 2024/1028, and rulings of other constitutional courts (point 6.2. of the Considerations in Law). It should also be noted that the recent "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework of measures in Member States to safeguard affordability and availability of housing" (Affordable Housing Act), of 9 September 2026, indicates, among the aforementioned measures, the restriction of access to "short-term accommodation rental services in residential property" (Article 2, paragraph 1, letter a), of the proposal).
Regional laws may, for example, contemplate a quota system for tourist rentals in certain areas, in order to guarantee an adequate supply of housing for long-term residential use. This is provided for both by the regional law under examination here (Article 5, paragraph 5, letter a)) and by regional law of Tuscany No. 61 of 2024 (Article 59, paragraph 3, letter a)). The State legislator itself provided for the regulatory-urban planning intervention of the Municipality of Venice in order to set maximum limits for the allocation of residential properties to short-term tourist rentals (Article 37-bis of Decree-Law No. 50 of 17 May 2022, bearing "Urgent measures regarding national energy policies, business productivity and investment attraction, as well as social policies and the Ukrainian crisis," converted, with amendments, into Law No. 91 of 15 July 2022). Quota setting is also possible from the perspective of Article 23-ter, paragraphs 1-bis and 1-ter, of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 2001, because it does not translate into an absolute prohibition of tourist rental in a certain area or a certain building, but merely conditions the establishment of that use upon compliance with a certain ratio between short-term rentals and residential units (judgment No. 61 of 2026, point 10). Both the technical report to the conversion bill of Decree-Law No. 69 of 29 May 2024 (Urgent provisions in building and urban planning simplification), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 105 of 24 July 2024, and the implementing circular of the same decree-law (point 2 of the "Guidelines and interpretive criteria on the implementation of decree-law no. 69 of 29 May 2024, converted, with amendments, by law no. 105 of 24 July 2024 (DL Salva Casa)," adopted by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport) confirm the configurability of "measures capping requests for changes of intended use." This is without prejudice to the need to comply with Article 23-ter, paragraph 1-quater, second period, of the cited building consolidated text ("In the cases referred to in paragraph 1-ter, the change of intended use is not subject to the obligation to find additional areas for services of general interest provided for by the Decree of the Minister of Public Works No. 1444 of 2 April 1968 and by regional law provisions, nor to the constraint of the minimum mandatory parking provision [...]").
8.2.– However, the regulation laid down by Article 4 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025 does not pass the review carried out pursuant to Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution.
The appellant challenges a distortion of competition between short-term rental operators, who are the sole addressees of the restrictive rules in question, and operators of different tourist accommodation facilities, including non-hotel ones. The "new land registry reclassification," provided for by Article 4, would represent "a de facto impediment" for the short-term rental operator and a market restriction.
The premise of the challenge is correct. Article 4 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 16 of 28 July 2004 (Regulations of accommodation structures directed at hospitality) distinguishes between hotel structures, non-hotel structures (among which "room rentals" [affittacamere] and "holiday homes and apartments": paragraph 8) and open-air structures. For both "room rentals" (Article 10, paragraph 1) and "holiday homes and apartments" (Article 11, paragraph 1), management in an entrepreneurial form is (mandatory). According to the regional law, these non-hotel structures can retain their residential destination, as clarified by Regional Executive Resolution No. 802 of 4 June 2007 ("[t]he use of dwellings for the management activities of holiday homes and apartments or for the rental of accommodation to tourists does not entail the modification of the intended use of buildings for urban planning purposes"), and confirmed by the Council of State, Section V, judgment No. 10361 of 29 December 2025 (points 4.4.1. and 4.4.2.).
Therefore, the obligation to transition from the residential designation to the tourist-accommodation category weighs only on short-term rental operators, not on those of non-hotel accommodation structures. Such a disparity is unreasonable, as it pursues no worthy-of-protection purpose. The analogous Article 41, paragraph 3, of regional law of Tuscany No. 61 of 2024, which imposes tourist-accommodation intended use for all properties used for non-hotel accommodation activities, was deemed not inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution because entrepreneurial management is imposed for those structures, so this Court noted that, "[i]f a property is used in a stable and organized manner as a non-hotel accommodation structure, the provision of the tourist-accommodation intended use cannot be considered inconsistent or unreasonable" (judgment No. 186 of 2025, point 3.1. of the Considerations in Law). By contrast, the challenged Article 4 imposes the change of intended use on short-term rentals, which can also be sporadic, because, on the one hand, they can be managed in a non-entrepreneurial form, and on the other hand Article 4 does not condition the obligation of change upon exceeding a determined threshold of use of the property for short-term rental purposes. Therefore, the limitation established by Article 4 cannot be justified by the purpose of adapting the urban planning destination to the actual use of the asset.
Article 4 is also constitutionally illegitimate insofar as it applies to entrepreneurial short-term rentals, because in that case the rationale for the different regime compared to non-hotel accommodation structures – which – as seen – must be managed in an entrepreneurial form but can retain their residential destination – is incomprehensible.
On the other hand, Article 4 cannot be considered suitable for pursuing the purpose of limiting overtourism produced by short-term rentals, given that that phenomenon affects circumscribed areas of the regional territory, whereas Article 4 (unlike the measures introduced by municipalities pursuant to Article 5) is a rule applicable to the entire regional territory. Therefore, it is clearly disproportionate to that end.
9.– Article 5 was also challenged for infringement of Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution.
The question is founded.
The entire regulation of Article 5 is aimed at governing the "[e]stablishment of the short-term rental use," i.e., the new intended use introduced by Article 4. Once the conflict of that provision with Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution has been ascertained (point 8.2.), the defect cannot but reflect on Article 5, the focal point of which is precisely represented by the new institute introduced by Article 4. Without prejudice to what was reiterated in point 8.1., at the moment in which the regulation of short-term rentals takes place through an instrument judged to conflict with Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution, the provision of such regulation likewise conflicts with the same parameters.
10.– All other questions raised remain absorbed.
on those grounds
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
1) declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Articles 4 and 5 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 19 December 2025 (Regulations concerning real estate units intended for short-term rental in Emilia-Romagna);
2) declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Articles 4 and 5 of regional law of Emilia-Romagna No. 10 of 2025, brought, with reference to Article 117, second paragraph, letter e), of the Constitution, by the President of the Council of Ministers, by the appeal indicated in the heading.
Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 7 July 2026.
Signed:
Giovanni AMOROSO, President
Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Rapporteur
Igor DI BERNARDINI, Registrar
Filed in the Registry on 9 October 2026