JUDGMENT NO. 184

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, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has delivered the following

JUDGMENT

in the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 15 May 2024 (Urgent provisions for agricultural, fisheries, and aquaculture enterprises, as well as for enterprises of national strategic interest), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 101 of 12 July 2024, and of Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 25 November 2024, bearing «Regulation of administrative regimes for the production of energy from renewable sources, in implementation of Article 26, paragraphs 4 and 5, letters b) and d), of Law No. 118 of 5 August 2022», brought by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Section Three, by means of three distinct orders dated 24 June 2025, 9 July 2025, and 13 May 2025, registered respectively under numbers 156, 164, and 168 of the 2025 register of orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, numbers 37 and 38, 1st special series, of the year 2025; and of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 8 November 2021, bearing «Implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, as amended by Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652», as introduced by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, as converted, and of Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, brought by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Section Three, by means of two non-final judgments dated 13 May 2025 and 11 August 2025, registered respectively under numbers 150 and 178 of the 2025 register of orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic numbers 36 and 40, 1st special series, of the year 2025.

Having regard to the appearances of ERG Solar holding srl, Asja Ambiente Italia srl S.B., Elettricità Futura-Union of Italian Electricity Enterprises, Green Sole Renewables Italia 1 srl, FRV Italia srl, Elements Green Atena srl and others, as well as the interventions of the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard Judge Rapporteur Massimo Luciani at the public hearing of 23 September 2026;

having heard counsel Carlo Comandè for ERG Solar holding srl and for FRV Italia srl, Daniele Chiatante for Asja Ambiente Italia srl S.B. and for Elettricità Futura-Union of Italian Electricity Enterprises, Germana Cassar for Green Sole Renewables Italia 1 srl and for the other intervening parties, as well as State Attorney Giammario Rocchitta for the President of the Council of Ministers;

deliberated in chambers on 23 September 2026.

Rits in Fact

1.– By three distinct orders dated 24 June 2025, 9 July 2025, and 13 May 2025, registered respectively under numbers 156, 164, and 168 of the 2025 register of orders, the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Section Three, raised questions as to the constitutional legitimacy of: a) Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 15 May 2024 (Urgent provisions for agricultural, fisheries, and aquaculture enterprises, as well as for enterprises of national strategic interest), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 101 of 12 July 2024; b) Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 25 November 2024, bearing «Regulation of administrative regimes for the production of energy from renewable sources, in implementation of Article 26, paragraphs 4 and 5, letters b) and d), of Law No. 118 of 5 August 2022». By two non-final judgments dated 13 May 2025 and 11 August 2025, registered respectively under numbers 150 and 178 of the 2025 register of orders, it further raised questions as to the constitutional legitimacy of: a) Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 8 November 2021, bearing «Implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, as amended by Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652» – as amended by Legislative Decree No. 5 of 9 January 2026, bearing «Implementation of Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652»; b) Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024.

It must be specified that paragraph 1 of Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (the so-called Agriculture Decree-Law, cited hereinafter in the text resulting from the relative conversion law) adds paragraph 1-bis to Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, whereas paragraph 2 thereof delimits its scope of application.

The originating acts registered under numbers 150, 156, 164, and 168 of the 2025 register of orders allege the violation of Articles 3, 9, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, also in relation to the principles of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, amending Regulations (EC) No. 663/2009 and (EC) No. 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 94/22/EC, 98/70/EC, 2009/31/EC, 2009/73/EC, 2010/31/EU, 2012/27/EU and 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 2009/119/EC and (EU) 2015/652, and repealing Regulation (EU) No. 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652, as well as by Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No. 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 («European Climate Law»).

Lastly, by the non-final judgment registered under number 178 of the 2025 register of orders, the violation of the same parameters is alleged, with the exception of Article 9 of the Constitution.

1.1.– The TAR for Lazio states that it is called upon to rule on the challenge brought by certain companies operating in the sector of energy production from renewable sources, in particular from solar sources, against the Ministerial Decree of the Minister of Environment and Energy Security, issued in concert with the Minister of Culture and the Minister of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forestry, of 21 June 2024 (Rules for identifying surfaces and areas suitable for the installation of plants using renewable sources).

1.2.– In point of fact, in all the originating acts, with the sole exception of the non-final judgment registered under No. 178 of the 2025 register of orders, the remitting judge specifies that the initiatives under development by the applicant companies in the main proceedings included, inter alia, the preparation of projects for the construction of photovoltaic plants for which the procedures for issuing construction and operating authorizations had not yet been initiated.

According to the applicant companies in the main proceedings, the provisions laid down by the Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024, in the formal exercise of the delegation referred to in Article 20, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, had de facto introduced unlawful criteria detrimental to their legal position, as they were liable to jeopardize the authorization of photovoltaic plant projects.

1.3.– As a preliminary matter, the TAR for Lazio argues regarding the impossibility of reaching a constitutionally oriented interpretation of Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 and of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 (introduced, as already highlighted, by the aforementioned Article 5).

The remitting judge observes that the subject matter of the statutory provision specifically and clearly concerns the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants in areas classified as agricultural.

The legislature intended to permit the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants in agricultural areas only in expressly provided cases, so that the adverb «exclusively» confirms the absolute scope of the prohibition outside the contemplated exemptions.

1.4.– The remitting judge observes that the impossibility of reaching an interpretation of the rule that is fully satisfactory for the applicant companies entails the relevance of the raised questions of constitutional legitimacy, given that the prohibition under Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (and under Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021) would preclude the implementation of the projects on account of their specific location.

The Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024 replicates the prohibition established by the primary rule, leaving its slavish transposition to regional legislation and determining ex se the impossibility of implementing the applicant companies' projects.

The continued validity of the censured rule would preclude the remitting judge from upholding the claims, as the Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024 conforms to the law. In the absence of a declaration of constitutional illegitimacy of Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (and of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021), the claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024, to the extent of interest, should therefore be dismissed.

Conversely, any declaration of constitutional illegitimacy of the censured rules would entail the upholding of the appeals, with the annulment of Article 1, paragraph 2, letter d), of the Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024.

1.5.– As to the non-manifest unfoundedness, in all the originating acts (even the non-final judgments registered under numbers 150 and 178 of the 2025 register of orders, albeit only in their conclusions, invoke Article 11 of the Constitution) the TAR for Lazio maintains that the censured legislation presents profiles of conflict, first and foremost, with Articles 11 and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, regarding the failure to comply with «obligations deriving from the Community legal order» and, in particular, the principle of the maximum dissemination of renewable energy sources, deriving from Union law.

After having punctually recalled the Union regulatory framework, the remitting judge points out that environmental protection and the promotion of renewable energies constitute interdependent policies, highlighting, in light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, how the use of renewable sources for electricity generation contributes to environmental protection through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which are among the main causes of climate change that the European Union and the Member States have undertaken to combat.

The increase in the share of renewables constitutes one of the core elements of the package of measures required to reduce such gas emissions and comply with Law No. 120 of 1 June 2002 (Ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, done at Kyoto on 11 December 1997), as well as with other commitments undertaken at Union and international levels for the reduction of such emissions.

This, moreover, would also be functional to the protection of human and animal health and life, as well as the preservation of plants (reference is made to the Court of Justice of the European Union, Grand Chamber, judgment of 1 July 2014, Case C-573/12, Ålands Vindkraft AB, and judgment of 13 March 2001, Case C-379/98, PreussenElektra AG).

The remitting judge, after extensively citing Directive 2018/2001/EU, highlights the introduction of a binding Union target for 2030, pursuant to Article 3 of the Directive, aimed at ensuring that the share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption reaches at least 32 percent, with provision for a possible upward revision by the Commission based on cost trends, international commitments, and consumption reduction, as well as the sufficiency of national contributions evaluated through integrated national energy and climate plans. He also cites Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, which established the regulatory framework for climate neutrality, setting the binding target of net-zero emissions by 2050 and fixing, as an intermediate milestone for 2030, a reduction of at least 55 percent compared to 1990 levels. Directive 2023/2413/EU and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 are also invoked, which outline the governance system of the Energy Union and Climate Action, based on criteria of reliability, transparency, and efficiency, functional to the achievement of the Union's climate and energy targets in consistency with the Paris Agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted in Paris on 12 December 2015.

Reference is made to the case-law of this Court, highlighting that Union and national legislation are inspired by the principle of the maximum dissemination of renewable sources, which translates into the general usability of land for the installation of plants, barring exceptions justified by the protection of other constitutionally relevant interests.

It is further noted that the original legislation referred to in Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, concerning the identification of suitable and unsuitable areas, did not introduce generalized preclusions to the use of agricultural land, establishing instead that unusable agricultural surfaces were, inter alia, considered privileged areas for the installation of plants from renewable sources.

According to the remitting judge, the new paragraph 1-bis of Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, as introduced by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, upsets the previous system. From the list of sites suitable for the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants, it can be inferred that the vast majority of agricultural land, equal to approximately half of the national territory, would be precluded from new interventions of this type, barring those involving mere renovation, modification, or reconstruction, with the consequent impossibility of using additional agricultural land.

It is furthermore specified that – by express provision – the prohibition does not extend solely to projects implementing measures financed with the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) or the Complementary Investment Plan to the NRRP, which nevertheless would not encompass all projects necessary to achieve the targets provided for by the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC), an instrument provided for by Union legislation to achieve the Union's binding targets for the renewable energy share.

According to the TAR for Lazio, considering the state of implementation of Article 20, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 and the broad discretion granted to the regions by the Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024 in identifying unsuitable areas, the impact of the prohibition would in any case prove uncertain and, in any event, would translate into a significant restriction of the areas available for plant installation, in potential conflict with Article 15-ter, paragraph 1, second subparagraph, of Directive 2018/2001/EU, inserted by Article 1, point 6), of Directive 2023/2413/EU, according to which «[m]ember States shall ensure that such areas, including existing renewable energy generation facilities, and cooperation mechanisms are commensurate with the estimated trajectories and the planned total installed capacity of renewable energy technologies set out in the national energy and climate plans submitted pursuant to Articles 3 and 14 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999».

It is likewise highlighted that, pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, failure to achieve renewable energy targets may entail for Member States the obligation to adopt supplementary measures, including financial contributions to the Union renewable energy financing mechanism.

According to the TAR for Lazio, the indiscriminate subtraction of vast portions of the national territory from the deployment of photovoltaic technology could hinder the achievement of European targets on renewable energies, with the consequent need for corrective measures and possible repercussions on public finances.

The generalized preclusion of the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants would furthermore conflict with the principle that, within the process of identifying the areas necessary for national contributions to the Union's overall renewable energy target for 2030 pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 15-ter of Directive 2018/2001/EU (introduced by Article 1, point 6, of Directive 2023/2413/EU), «[m]ember States shall promote the multi-use of the areas referred to in paragraph 1. Renewable energy projects shall be compatible with the pre-existing uses of such areas».

According to the remitting judge, the prohibition introduced by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 would determine an irreconcilable conflict between agricultural land use and ground-mounted photovoltaic technology.

The prohibition, moreover, could hinder the achievement of installed capacity targets from renewable sources and compromise the European climate change adaptation strategy, jeopardizing the achievement of climate neutrality.

In the opinion of the TAR for Lazio, the prohibition would also conflict with the principle of environmental integration referred to in Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as it fails to provide for any effective balancing between the interests involved and attributes absolute prevalence to the preservation of the state of places, without even considering the actual agricultural usability of the land.

Finally, the provision would appear uncoordinated with the scheme of Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 and inconsistent with the purpose, pursued by the cited Union and national legislation, of promoting the maximum dissemination of renewable energies.

1.6.– According to the remitting judge, the censured legislation would also conflict with the principle of proportionality (reference is made to the EU Court of Justice, Fifth Chamber, judgment of 11 June 2009, Case C-170/08, H. J. Nijemeisland, as well as to judgment of this Court No. 1 of 2014), thereby violating Article 3 of the Constitution.

The censured measure would introduce a generalized and absolute prohibition on the use of ground-mounted photovoltaic technology across a vast part of the national territory, departing radically from the ordinary model of balancing between the need to disseminate renewable energies and the necessity of environmental, landscape, and cultural protection. Whereas, in fact, such interests are normally safeguarded through the identification of unsuitable areas, which nevertheless allow for a concrete verification of the compatibility of individual projects, Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (together with Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021) establishes an absolute and preemptive prevalence of the interest in preserving agricultural soils, without any room for balancing with other constitutionally significant interests.

1.7.– The TAR for Lazio, in all originating acts – with the exception, as stated, of the non-final judgment of the register of orders No. 178 of 2025, which does not invoke the parameter of Article 9 of the Constitution – maintains that the censured legislation entails the unconditional sacrifice of the principle of sustainable development and that this conflicts with Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution and with the established case-law of this Court, according to which «[a]ll fundamental rights protected by the Constitution are in a relationship of mutual integration and it is therefore impossible to identify one of them that has absolute prevalence over the others» (reference is made to judgment No. 85 of 2013).

According to the remitting judge, the prohibition introduced by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 would operate solely on the basis of the urbanistic classification of land as agricultural, without considering its concrete use, real agricultural vocation, or crop quality, thereby proving unreasonable and disproportionate, especially with regard to degraded or unusable areas (a censure also contained in the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025).

Lastly, all originating acts highlight that the guidelines referred to in the Decree of the Minister of Economic Development, issued in concert with the Minister of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea and the Minister for Cultural Heritage and Activities of 10 September 2010 (Guidelines for the authorization of plants powered by renewable sources) provided that regions could indicate as areas and sites unsuitable for the installation of specific types of plants those areas particularly sensitive and/or vulnerable to territorial or landscape transformations, including agricultural areas affected by quality agri-food production (organic production, PDO, PGI, TSG, DOC, DOCG, traditional production) and/or of particular value with respect to the landscape-cultural context.

The legislation laid down by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (and by Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021) would furthermore conflict with Commission Recommendation (EU) 2024/1343 of 13 May 2024 on accelerating permit-granting procedures for renewable energy projects and related infrastructure projects, as it would introduce a prohibition maximizing exclusion zones that would lack adequate concrete foundation and prove incompatible with the European objective of expanding the availability of spaces intended for the development of renewable energy projects.

1.8.– The originating acts specify that the identified grounds of defect must be deemed extended also to Article 5, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (with the exception of the non-final judgments registered under numbers 150 and 178 of the 2025 register of orders, which do not include the rule within the perimeter of the promoted constitutional legitimacy question), to the extent that it introduces a safeguard regime based on the prohibition provided for by paragraph 1, as well as to Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, where it establishes that «[t]he interventions referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, are considered to be of public utility, urgent and non-deferrable and may also be located in areas classified as agricultural by current urban planning schemes, in compliance with the provisions of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 8 November 2021», since this provision would replicate the prohibition referred to in the aforementioned paragraph 1-bis of Article 20 of amended Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 (this latter extension is also found in the non-final judgments registered under numbers 150 and 178 of the 2025 register of orders).

1.9.– On the basis of these premises, the TAR for Lazio raises: a) in the proceedings registered under numbers 156, 164, and 168 of the 2025 register of orders, with reference to Articles 3, 9, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, also in relation to the principles expressed by Directive 2018/2001/EU and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, as amended by Directive 2023/2413/EU, as well as Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 as well as Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024; b) in the proceeding registered under No. 150 of the 2025 register of orders, with reference to the same parameters sub a), questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 as well as Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024; c) in the proceeding registered under No. 178 of the 2025 register of orders, with reference to the same parameters sub a), with the exception of Article 9 of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 as well as Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024.

2.– The President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, intervened in all proceedings by means of separate acts of similar tenor, requesting that the questions of constitutional legitimacy be declared inadmissible or, in the alternative, unfounded.

2.1.− As a preliminary matter, the intervenor excepted the inadmissibility of the questions, alleging that they are formulated in merely doubtful terms and are founded on unproven factual elements, put forward as merely eventual material presuppositions.

More specifically, the remitting judge would have proposed the questions in a merely hypothetical manner, assuming – without adequate factual support – that the generalized prohibition on installing ground-mounted photovoltaic plants in agricultural areas could compromise the achievement of Union targets regarding renewable energies.

The censure would therefore prove inadmissible, as it is based on mere conjectures and not corroborated by certain data or suitable evidentiary elements.

In particular, the remitting judge would have erroneously assimilated the prohibition under examination to an absolute preclusion of the photovoltaic exploitation of agricultural land, failing to consider that advanced agrivoltaic plants remain permitted, as they are compatible with the agricultural use of the land. Consequently, agricultural areas are not entirely subtracted from solar energy production, but only limitedly to installations incompatible with the concurrent agricultural destination.

The defense of the President of the Council of Ministers observes, lastly, that Union law in any case provides for suitable corrective instruments to cope with any difficulties in achieving the targets set for 2030.

2.2.− On the merits, the intervenor's defense maintains that the questions are unfounded.

2.2.1.– As to the parameters under Articles 11 and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, invoked in relation to the cited Union legislation and the alleged obstacle to achieving energy efficiency targets, the State Attorney General's Office maintains that the same reasons put forward in support of inadmissibility would in any case suffice to ground a dismissal ruling.

There would be, in fact, no element suitable for demonstrating that the residual modalities of using agricultural land for solar energy production – from advanced agrivoltaic plants to other hypotheses permitted by the censured legislation – are such as to compromise the achievement of Union targets for environmental protection and energy efficiency.

On the contrary, the legislation under examination would be the expression of a legitimate legislative choice aimed at balancing energy production requirements with the protection of the agricultural destination of the land, also in light of the safeguard mechanisms provided for by the European legal order.

2.2.2.– As to the parameters under Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution, the State Attorney's Office contests the alleged violation of the principle of integration of environmental protections and values, maintaining that the censured legislation falls within the framework of a necessary balancing between the promotion of renewable energies and the protection of agricultural land, a non-renewable asset essential for biodiversity, food security, and environmental sustainability.

In this regard, Union principles on sustainable development are recalled, highlighting how the European Union itself pursues a balance between the energy transition and the safeguarding of agricultural territory.

Such an objective would entail the adoption of careful territorial planning, accompanied by rigorous environmental assessments, as well as the use of compatible technologies, such as latest-generation agrivoltaics.

According to the State Attorney's Office, the remitting judge failed to consider that the maximum dissemination of renewable sources does not constitute an objective to be achieved at any cost, as it must be balanced with other constitutionally relevant ends, according to a systemic approach already affirmed by the case-law of this Court.

From this perspective, Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 would represent a legitimate legislative choice aimed at preventing the irreversible consumption of agricultural land and ensuring balanced territorial governance, without absolutely precluding the exploitation of agricultural areas for uses pertaining to energy production.

2.2.3.– As to the parameter under Article 3 of the Constitution, the State Attorney's Office maintains that the provisions forming the subject matter of these proceedings cannot be censured for lack of proportionality, since the prohibition provided for by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, in light of the literal wording and the ratio of the rule, does not extend to advanced agrivoltaic plants, which, as they do not entail the installation of ground-mounted modules, do not bring about the subtraction of agricultural land that the rule aims to prevent.

The prohibition introduced by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 does not constitute an absolute preclusion to the construction of energy production plants from renewable sources over a large part of the national territory, as it permits the use of advanced agrivoltaic plants suitable for preserving the continuity of agricultural and pastoral activities.

Such a legislative choice would constitute a balanced compromise between the protection of agricultural production and the promotion of clean energy, proving compliant with the principle of proportionality.

The contested regulatory choice would be necessary, since the protection of agricultural production could not be guaranteed if ground-mounted module installation were permitted, and would prove proportionate in the strict sense, imposing a reasonable sacrifice on operators, who could in any case pursue their entrepreneurial objectives through so-called advanced agrivoltaics.

Such a solution would constitute a natural and strategic evolution of photovoltaic systems installed on agricultural land, capable of generating a virtuous ecosystem able to combine agricultural production and energy efficiency.

From a systemic perspective, the prohibition does not constitute an absolute and unreasonable preclusion, but rather implements the principle of proportionality, avoiding the irreversible and generalized sacrifice of agricultural land in the presence of less impactful technical alternatives, thereby representing an essential constraint for renewable energy development policies marked by balance and sustainability.

In conclusion, the Treasury defense observes that, in the absence of the censured legislation, there would arise the risk of an unlimited expansion of the «right» to install ground-mounted photovoltaic plants, liable to become «tyrannical» with respect to other constitutionally protected goods, such as the protection of the agricultural heritage, biodiversity, and soil.

The Constitution instead requires «a continuous and mutual balancing between fundamental principles and rights. Without any claim to absoluteness for any of them. [...] The point of balance, precisely because it is dynamic and not predetermined in principle, must be assessed by the legislature in the enactment of rules and by the constitutional judge in review proceedings, according to criteria of proportionality and reasonableness such as not to allow a sacrifice of their core essence» (reference is made to judgment of this Court No. 85 of 2013).

The intervention brief adds that, according to the administrative judge, such a balancing had already been accomplished at the Union level, leaving no margin for Member States, with the consequence that wind and photovoltaic projects should be fully implemented in function of decarbonization targets.

This would result in the emergence of an additional «tyrannical» interest, namely that of climate neutrality, with respect to which every other interest should cede.

This approach is nevertheless deemed unacceptable, and a systemic and coherent interpretation of Union law is advocated, to be coordinated with Article 9 of the Constitution, understood as a limit and criterion of balancing, in harmony with Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Treaty on European Union, which safeguards the constitutional identity of Member States.

2.2.3.1.– As to the aspect of unreasonableness and non-proportionality of the prohibition based solely on the urbanistic classification of the area as agricultural, regardless of its concrete use, it is observed that requirements of legal certainty mandate reference to stable legal categories, rather than mutable factual conditions such as land degradation or temporary disuse.

Urbanistic classification indeed expresses the current and potential vocation of the land.

It is added, finally, that any openness to the installation of ground-mounted agrivoltaic plants on degraded or unused agricultural areas would prove, in concrete terms, scarcely significant, since such surfaces are frequently unsuitable due to morphological and structural characteristics for the installation of photovoltaic plants.

2.2.3.2.– Nor would the passage of the originating acts be shareable where it highlights that the prohibition should be selective and calibrated to crop quality, limiting itself to preserving only areas affected by high-value agri-food production (organic, «PDO, PGI, TSG, DOC, DOCG», traditional, or of particular landscape and cultural relevance).

The State Attorney's Office notes that this approach would conflict with the agricultural vocation of the land, deducible from its urbanistic classification, which also permits a destination for high-value crops only in the future, a possibility that would be compromised by generalized occupation with photovoltaic plants.

It is specified, lastly, that the protection of agricultural land does not exclusively concern excellence production, but also traditional and ordinary production, to which the principle of soil preservation refers, closely connected to the right to healthy nutrition and national food self-sufficiency.

Such interests, referring to typical cultivations of the Mediterranean context, would have been overlooked by the remitting judge, who failed to grasp how the censured legislation is immune from the deduced defects.

3.– The parties appearing in the proceedings are, respectively, ERG Solar holding srl (reg. ord. No. 150 of 2025), Asja Ambiente Italia srl S.B. (reg. ord. No. 156 of 2025), Green Sole Renewables Italia 1 srl (reg. ord. No. 164 of 2025), FRV Italia srl (reg. ord. No. 168 of 2025), and the companies Elements Green Atena srl, Elements Green Ermes srl, Elements Green Demetra srl, Elements Green Nettuno srl, Elements Green Ares srl, and Elements Green Artemide srl (reg. ord. No. 178 of 2025), which are parties in the main proceedings.

The companies recall national and Union legislation as well as the contribution of Elettricità Futura-Union of Italian Electricity Enterprises and retrace the arguments of the TAR for Lazio in support of the raised questions of constitutional legitimacy.

In particular, in the appearance briefs of ERG Solar holding srl and FRV Italia srl, it is highlighted that the prohibition under Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (and under Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021) would appear paradoxical in light of real data on the occupation of agricultural land by photovoltaic plants. This would reveal the non-existence of the factual presupposition of the impoverishment of agricultural soils, both due to the marginality of surfaces actually usable for the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants compared to the total agricultural area and due to the necessity of achieving Union targets through a combination of technological solutions, including on existing infrastructure, with a consequent limited impact on agricultural land.

The works, moreover, are qualified ex lege as of public utility, functional to environmental protection, precisely to mitigate and balance the land consumption necessary for their implementation.

The companies also observe, ad colorandum, that similar measures have never been adopted with regard to speculative interventions of urbanistic transformation of agricultural land lacking a public purpose, a profile from which the «abnormality» of the censured legislative choice would derive.

Finally, reference is made to the established case-law of this Court, which has repeatedly reaffirmed the relevance of the principle of maximum dissemination of renewable sources and the need for sectoral legislation to be consistent with Union targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change, with a view to the progressive expansion of renewable energies.

The aforementioned companies conclude by asking this Court to uphold the raised questions.

4.– In the proceeding registered under No. 156 of the 2025 register of orders, the association Elettricità Futura-Union of Italian Electricity Enterprises also appeared as an intervenor in the main proceedings, and after illustrating the relevant national and European regulatory framework and citing various judgments of this Court, retraces the most significant passages of the non-final judgment of the TAR for Lazio.

The association recalls a contribution produced by itself, from which it would emerge that to achieve the target of the 2030 electricity plan/REPowerEU in Italy, 84 GW should be installed, of which 57 GW in photovoltaics. In the Italian territory, the total agricultural area (TAA) would equal 16 million hectares, whereas the utilized agricultural area (UAA) would equal 12.5 million hectares. Furthermore, 4 million hectares of agricultural land would be abandoned. By 2023, plants with a capacity of 30.3 GW had been installed. Of these, according to the Energy Services Manager (GSE), 9.2 GW would be ground-mounted photovoltaic plants using 16,400 hectares, which would equate to only 0.05 percent of the national territory, or 0.13 percent of the UAA. Installing the 84 GW referred to in the 2030 electricity plan/REPowerEU would require up to 70,000 hectares – considering the hypothesis that the entire target were achieved through the sole use of photovoltaic technology with ground-mounted panels, without taking into account the share installable on buildings – which would equate to 0.2 percent of the Italian territory and 0.4 percent of the TAA.

This would be a marginal portion of agricultural land even when compared to the 4 million hectares of abandoned agricultural land and the 12.5 million hectares of UAA.

In light of these data, the association notes that, facing a risk of excessive agricultural land consumption deemed non-existent, Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 introduces a general and indiscriminate prohibition on constructing ground-mounted photovoltaic plants in areas urbanistically classified as agricultural, with an excessively prejudicial impact both on private interests and on the objectives, abstractly pursued, of environmental and landscape protection.

According to the association, it is not understandable why paragraph 1-bis of Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 establishes that «ground-mounted module» photovoltaic plants may be constructed, albeit in compliance with the limits established therein, exclusively within certain areas classified as suitable pursuant to paragraph 8 of the same Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021. Such an «exemption» would consequently configure itself as unreasonable and disproportionate with respect to the purpose pursued by the legislation, proving, as a result, liable to conflict with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

The association therefore asks this Court to uphold the raised questions.

5.– In the proceeding registered under No. 178 of the 2025 register of orders, written opinions were filed, pursuant to Article 6 of the Supplementary Rules for Proceedings before the Constitutional Court, by the Italian Federation of Social Mediators for Renewable Energies (FIMSER-Sardegna) and SAPER-Sardi per le rinnovabili. The opinions were admitted by presidential decree of 21 July 2025.

In summary, the opinions insist upon the constitutional illegitimacy of the censured rules for conflict with the parameters invoked in the rulings of the TAR for Lazio.

In particular, it is maintained that, although the remitting judge excepted the violation of Union legislation, also in light of Article 37 of the Nice Charter, this Court is not required to submit, in turn, a preliminary question to the EU Court of Justice, it being sufficient to apply the established case-law on the matter, declaring the constitutional illegitimacy of the censured legislation for violation of Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, as well as Article 3 of the Constitution.

Such a conclusion would be further confirmed by the univocity of the case-law of the EU Court of Justice, which is established in holding that the use of renewable sources for energy production is useful for environmental protection, contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, one of the main causes of climate change.

Said intervenors insist on highlighting that, even in the absence of the prohibition, agricultural areas would not automatically be usable for the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants, since agricultural zones partly fall within suitable areas (pursuant to Article 20, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 as well as those to be identified by the regions), partly among unsuitable ones (also to be identified by the regions), as well as in the residual category of «ordinary areas» provided for by the Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024.

In any case, even for agricultural zones that might be classified as suitable, this would not entail with certainty their exploitation for the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants, as the obtaining of authorization measures by competent administrations would still be necessary for such purpose.

6.– In the proceedings registered under numbers 150 and 168 of the 2025 register of orders, on 1 September 2026, briefs of analogous content were filed by ERG Solar holding srl and FRV Italia srl, respectively.

6.1.– The companies, in addition to reiterating the arguments already set forth in their appearance briefs, taking note of the evolution of the regulatory framework, formulate further observations aimed at confirming both the relevance of the questions and the enduring topicality of the interest in a ruling by this Court on the constitutional illegitimacy of the censured rules.

More specifically, the companies highlight that, pending the resolution of the questions raised before this Court, Decree-Law No. 175 of 21 November 2025 (Urgent measures regarding the Transition 5.0 Plan and the production of energy from renewable sources), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 4 of 15 January 2026, entered into force, introducing integrations and amendments to Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024.

In particular, the companies state that Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025 (cited hereinafter in the text resulting from the relative conversion law) repealed Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, including the regulation of areas suitable to host plants powered by renewable energy sources (RES plants) and paragraph 1-bis introduced by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, but that this did not result in the lapse of the requirement of relevance of the deduced constitutional legitimacy question. On this point, the companies cite the recent judgment No. 127 of 2026 of this Court, where it is stated that: «the entry into force of Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025 and the repeal of the censured rule produce no effects on the present constitutional legitimacy proceeding. [...] [T]his Court has repeatedly highlighted that when the main proceeding concerns the challenge of an act, "repeal has no effect on the [...] constitutionality proceeding, since, pursuant to the principle tempus regit actum, the remitting judge is required to carry out the assessment [of the act they are called upon to scrutinize] in light of the rules [...] in force at the time of its enactment"» (reference is made to judgment No. 257 of 2017).

The companies cite judgment No. 127 of 2026 also to rule out the manifest unfoundedness of the question due to ius superveniens, highlighting that the new legislation, although formally repealing the provision under Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, introduced Article 11-bis into Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, whose paragraph 2 substantially reproposed the contents of the previous rule and, therefore, the prohibition on installing ground-mounted photovoltaic plants.

In support of the merits of the constitutional legitimacy questions raised by the TAR for Lazio, the companies mention the contribution provided by Elettricità Futura, certain data from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) from 2021 on the surface available for installing RES plants, and the 2026 annual report of the National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) on the country's situation regarding renewable energies.

7.– In the proceeding registered under No. 156 of the 2025 register of orders, on 1 September 2026, briefs of analogous content were also presented by Elettricità Futura-Union of Italian Electricity Enterprises and Asja Ambiente Italia srl S.B., reiterating what was already highlighted in the appearance brief and formulating further observations in light of the aforementioned judgment of this Court No. 127 of 2026.

In summary, the briefs observe that the commendable protection of the agricultural fabric should also be viewed in light of the specificity of the individual area concerned as well as established administrative and constitutional case-law, according to which Union and domestic legislation do not allow for areas to be aprioristically interdicted to specific RES energy sources.

Furthermore, this Court is asked to evaluate the hypothesis of a preliminary reference to the EU Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, for an express ruling on the conflict between Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 and Union legislation concerning the «strategy» for adaptation to climate change and, more specifically, Directive 2018/2001/EU, which set a reduction in emissions for 2030 equal to 32 percent (a target updated to 42.5 percent by Directive 2023/2413/EU), Directive 2023/2413/EU, Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 of 22 December 2022 establishing a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2024/223 of 22 December 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 establishing a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, and Commission Recommendation (EU) 2024/1344 of 13 May 2024 on the design of renewable energy auctions. The Agriculture Decree-Law would impact the achievement of targets mandated by Union legislation.

The briefs maintain that precluding economic operators from the possibility of installing photovoltaic plants in agricultural areas, including degraded ones or those peripheral to industrial zones, would constitute a violation of Union legislation and, in particular, of EU Recommendation No. 2024/1343.

More specifically, domestic legislation – to the extent that it prohibits the construction of photovoltaic plants in agricultural areas – would openly conflict with the aforementioned Union legislation and in particular with: i) the principle of maximum dissemination of renewable sources and targets established at Union level; ii) the principles of simplification of authorization procedures for RES plants; iii) the nature of overriding public interest of RES plants over other conflicting potential interests; iv) the objective of further simplifying authorization procedures in so-called acceleration zones; v) the objective of minimizing so-called exclusion zones, given that a generalized prohibition covering almost all agricultural areas of the national territory is at issue.

8.– In the proceedings registered under numbers 164 and 178 of the 2025 register of orders, on 2 September 2026, briefs of analogous content were filed by Green Sole Renewables Italia 1 srl and the companies Elements Green Atena srl, Elements Green Ermes srl, Elements Green Demetra srl, Elements Green Nettuno srl, Elements Green Ares srl, and Elements Green Artemide srl, respectively, formulating further observations in light of the entry into force of Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025 and judgment No. 127 of 2026.

Preliminary, the companies state that, despite the formal repeal of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, the censured legislation continues to produce effects within the legal order, thereby preserving both the relevance of the constitutional legitimacy questions in the proceedings pending before the TAR for Lazio and the interest of the applicant companies.

Subsequently, it is specified that the briefs concern circumscribed and autonomous profiles of defect of Article 5, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, such as: i) the exact configuration of agrivoltaic plants excluded from the prohibition; ii) the inclusion within the safeguard clause of photovoltaic projects which, as of 16 May 2024, although not yet subject to a formal authorization or environmental application, had already achieved an objective, documented, and burdensome degree of consolidation, being equipped with an accepted general minimum technical solution for connection (GMTS) and the legal availability of the areas necessary for plant construction.

More specifically, the companies maintain that with judgment No. 127 of 2026 this Court defined the question concerning the constitutional legitimacy of the legislative prohibition in the abstract, without however exhausting the issues relating to the regulatory delimitation of the scope of application of the notion of «plant with ground-mounted modules» with reference to ongoing procedures.

They specify, in this regard, that the briefs do not intend to re-propose the same censure profiles overlapping those already examined and dismissed by this Court in the cited judgment, but aim to highlight how such a subsequent ruling requires, as a preliminary matter, a punctual ascertainment of the objective perimeter of the decision already rendered and, consequently, a corresponding delimitation of the residual thema decidendum in the present proceeding.

The companies maintain that the remitting judge had reasoned the relevance of the questions on the factual presupposition that the applicants' projects were referable to «basic» agrivoltaic plants, i.e., not advanced and therefore, according to the TAR for Lazio's reconstruction, certainly encompassed within the regulatory prohibition. It is also specified that the appearance brief in the present proceeding had already highlighted that «the agrivoltaic projects cultivated by the Company, all basic and therefore not advanced, are compromised by the aforementioned provision». Such a clarification, in the companies' view, is decisive, as it allows one to grasp that the core of the incidental proceeding was not only the abstract legitimacy of the legislative prohibition, but also the concrete way in which that prohibition projects onto specific agrivoltaic project configurations, namely plants which, although not qualified as «advanced», were conceived by the applicant companies as agrivoltaic plants and not as mere traditional photovoltaic parks with ground-mounted modules.

That being said, according to the companies, there remains a profile that judgment No. 127 of 2026 left open on the applicative and qualifying plane, namely that concerning the exact delimitation of the scope of the prohibition with respect to agrivoltaic plants, since, on the technical plane, the category «agrivoltaics» is broader than the sub-category «advanced agrivoltaics» and between the traditional ground-mounted photovoltaic plant and the «advanced» agrivoltaic plant there exists an intermediate area of project configurations that cannot be automatically assimilated to one or the other figure.

As to this profile, the companies state that this Court, while defining the plane of abstract constitutional legitimacy, did not close the plane of the technical-legal qualification of individual cases, stating indeed that «it is for the administration and the judge to precise the content of the regulatory syntagma».

According to the applicant companies, therefore, judgment No. 127 of 2026 did not fully resolve the interpretive question relevant here, leaving open the decisive point, namely how to distinguish, on an applicative plane, an agrivoltaic plant – albeit not «advanced» according to the classification of incentive legislation – from a ground-mounted photovoltaic plant that consumes and subtracts agricultural land from its destination.

In the applicant companies' view, the dividing line cannot be reduced to the binary formula that advanced agrivoltaic plants are always permitted and any other form is always prohibited. Such an automatism, besides not being inferable textually from ruling No. 127 of 2026, would end up transforming a functional distinction into a purely «label-based» distinction, eliminating precisely that evaluative space that this Court recognized as belonging to the administration and the judge in precising the content of the regulatory syntagma.

As to the transitional rule, the applicant companies maintain that it creates an exclusively formal watershed: a project that has initiated an administrative procedure is safeguarded, whereas a project that is economically and technically more mature, but lacking as of 16 May 2024 (the date of entry into force of the censured decree-law) only the filing of the application, remains definitively precluded.

The companies highlight that as of 16 May 2024: i) a request for connection referring to a specific plant, with determined power, location, and connection point, had been submitted to the grid operator; ii) the operator had drafted and communicated the GMTS, identifying the grid works and necessary technical and economic conditions; iii) the companies had accepted the GMTS and paid the required fees, assuming obligations regulated by the integrated text for active connections (ITAC) and binding the continuation of development to that connection solution; iv) preliminary contracts, options, leases, rights of surface, or other legal transactions suitable for ensuring the legal availability of land affected by the plant and, where necessary, connection works, had been concluded; v) costs for design, environmental studies, surveys, consultancies, and development activities specifically referable to the initiative had been incurred.

Such elements would render the project individualized and verifiable for three decisive profiles: location, connection, and availability of areas.

This would not be a generic expectation concerning the future exercise of economic activity, but an investment already concretely initiated according to the regulatory framework in force prior to the restrictive intervention.

According to the applicant companies, the GMTS does not equate to a mere technical study freely prepared by the proponent. It stems from a procedure regulated by the Regulatory Authority, is drafted by the grid operator burdened with the third-party connection obligation, identifies the minimum technical solution, and constitutes the necessary reference for the design and authorization of connection works.

Acceptance of the estimate containing the GMTS produces standardized legal and economic effects: it entails payment of fees, assumption of commitments provided for by the ITAC, and, within the limits and times established by regulation, reservation of grid capacity.

Regulatory Authority rules also link the persistence or confirmation of the solution to the development of the authorization process and govern the lapse, transfer, and modification of the file.

The accepted GMTS is thus an external act, dated and unmanipulable ex post, suitable for proving the effectiveness of the initiative. Its relevance is reinforced by the authorization legislation for renewable sources, which considers connection works an essential part of the project and mandates the inclusion of the grid solution in the documentation submitted to administrations.

The companies specify that they do not claim to qualify the connection procedure as an «administrative procedure necessary for obtaining titles» through analogical extension incompatible with the text. Rather, they wish to demonstrate that the legislature, in constructing a clause intended to protect pre-initiated projects, unreasonably ignored «a regulated and objective public index of consolidation, while valuing the mere opening of any administrative procedure».

For this profile, the companies deduce the violation of Article 3 of the Constitution, as Article 5, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 is unreasonable and afflicted by inequality of treatment.

The companies state that the ratio of paragraph 2 of Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 consists in the protection of pre-initiated projects, to prevent the new prohibition from overwhelming pre-existing, sufficiently individualized initiatives, and that judgment No. 127 of 2026 expressly defines the provision as a «safeguard clause» and includes it among the exceptions mitigating the scope of the prohibition.

According to the applicant companies, with respect to this ratio, the exclusively procedural criterion would prove «over-inclusive and under-inclusive». It would be over-inclusive because it would save a project for which an administrative procedure has been initiated even in the absence of a defined connection, availability of areas, and significant investments. It would be under-inclusive because it would exclude a project already defined in location and connection, covered by land availability contracts, and burdened with irreversible costs solely because the authorization application was submitted after 16 May 2024. The differential treatment of projects would be founded on a formal datum that measures neither the seriousness of the project nor the intensity of reliance in a reliable manner.

The legislation would furthermore be disproportionate: failure to submit an application by 15 May 2024 is linked to the complete loss of locational possibility and the substantial uselessness of investments, without an adaptation period, without reimbursement, and without individual assessment. Less restrictive measures, such as a short term to complete the application or documentary proof of qualified advancement, are not provided.

Finally, the transitional legislation would violate the protection of reliance and legal certainty, constitutionally guaranteed by Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution.

In the present case, reliance would be deserving. Its consolidation stems from the convergence of accepted GMTS, economic commitments, land availability, and specific costs. The intervention of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 was immediate and preceded by no adjustment regime. The sacrifice is definitive, because it does not consist in the mere economic remodeling of a relationship, but in the supervening impossibility of constructing the project in that location, with the sterilization of costs already incurred.

In the applicant companies' view, Article 41 of the Constitution assumes relevance not as a claim to the crystallization of economic discipline, but as a parameter of the proportionality of the incision upon an already concretely exercised initiative. A measure that zeros the value of specific investments without gradualism and without considering their effective consolidation would impose a sacrifice exceeding the protection of agricultural land.

The briefs specify that judgment No. 127 of 2026 does not preclude the possibility of raising this question, since the thema decidendum concerned solely the general prohibition, its proportionality with respect to land protection and European targets, and the overall sufficiency of exceptions and exemptions, the remitting judge having extended the censures to paragraph 2 of Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 only because it presupposed the prohibition of paragraph 1.

The present question would assume the persistent validity of the choice to introduce a safeguard and would censure solely its unreasonable delimitation. The petitum (a limited additive ruling), the causa petendi (Articles 3 and 41 of the Constitution under the profile of reliance and internal disparity), and the relevant facts would thus be different.

Articles 11 and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution could therefore be invoked not to deduce a Union obligation to admit any plant on agricultural land, but in support of the canon of proportionality in regulating the transition between regimes and the obligation to consider the maturity of pre-initiated investments.

The category of projects excluded from the prohibition could thus be delimited in rigorous terms: projects for which, as of the date of entry into force of the decree-law: i) a GMTS referred to the specific plant had been issued and accepted; ii) rights necessary for the availability of the plant's areas had been acquired through acts having a date certain. The a quo judge would remain competent to verify the occurrence of requirements and the nexus between investments and the project.

In the alternative, according to the applicant companies, an interpretive ruling would be possible mandating that the locution «at least one of the administrative procedures [...] necessary for obtaining titles has been initiated» be understood in a functional sense, including therein the regulated connection procedure when it has already led to the issuance and acceptance of the guaranteed minimum technical solution (GMTS) and is accompanied by the concrete availability of areas.

Considered in Law

9.− By the three orders indicated in the heading (registered under register of orders numbers 156, 164, and 168 of 2025), the TAR for Lazio, Section Three, raised, with reference to Articles 3, 9, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, also in relation to the principles expressed by Directive 2018/2001/EU and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, as amended by Directive 2023/2413/EU, as well as Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 and Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024.

By the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 150 of 2025, it further raised, with reference to Articles 3, 9, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, also in relation to the principles expressed by Directive 2018/2001/EU and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, as amended by Directive 2023/2413/EU, as well as Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 and Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024.

Finally, by the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025, it raised, with reference solely to Articles 3, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, questions of constitutional legitimacy of the same rules censured by the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 150 of 2025.

9.1.– The TAR for Lazio states that it is called upon to rule on the challenge against the Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024, which implements the censured rules, brought by certain companies operating in the sector of energy production from renewable sources, in particular from solar sources.

9.2.– In point of fact, all originating acts, with the exception of the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025, premise that the initiatives under development by the applicant companies included, inter alia, the preparation of projects for the construction of photovoltaic plants for which the procedures for issuing construction and operating authorizations had not yet been initiated.

Regarding the interpretation of the censured legislation, the remitting judge notes that the legislature intended to permit the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants in agricultural areas only in expressly provided cases, configuring an absolute prohibition outside the contemplated exemptions.

9.3.– Having thus ruled on the interpretation of the censured legislation, the TAR for Lazio, doubting its conformity with the Constitution, raises multiple questions of constitutional legitimacy.

9.4.– Said questions would be, first of all, relevant: as an interpretation of the censured rules favorable to the applicants is not practicable, the prohibition provided for by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (and by paragraph 1-bis of Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021) would constitute an obstacle to the implementation of the projects presented by them and consequently, in the absence of a declaration of constitutional illegitimacy, the claims examined in the main proceeding should be dismissed.

9.5.– On the merits, the remitting judge maintains that the censured legislation conflicts first and foremost with Articles 11 and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, as it would violate the principles of the European Union legal order, in particular that of the maximum dissemination of renewable energies. The prohibition could in fact hinder the achievement of installed capacity targets and compromise the European climate change adaptation strategy. This also in consideration of the breadth of the prohibition itself, which extends to all agricultural land, constituting over half of the national territory.

The legislation would furthermore conflict with the principle of environmental policy integration and the principle of proportionality, as it would attribute an absolute and preemptive prevalence to the protection of agricultural land, without allowing a balancing with other constitutional interests, among which that of sustainable development.

This would result in a violation of Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution as well (this latter constitutional parameter is indeed not invoked in the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025).

Further profiles of unreasonableness would emerge from the prohibition being anchored solely to the urbanistic classification of land, without considering its concrete use or the quality of crops practiced thereon.

10.– Before proceeding to examine the questions, it is useful to briefly recall European and national legislation concerning energy production plants from renewable sources.

10.1.– One of the pillars of the European Union's environmental and economic development policy is the energy transition, which requires, inter alia, increased energy production from renewable sources.

The strategic direction aimed at increasing «clean» energy was first defined by Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, repealed by Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, which shaped further legislation, in turn repealed by Directive 2018/2001/EU.

The strategy concerning renewable sources received further impetus from this latter directive, itself amended by Directive 2023/2413/EU, which in Italy was followed by Legislative Decree No. 5 of 2026.

Concurrently, with the Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 December 2019 (the so-called European Green Deal), the Commission outlined a growth strategy aimed at transforming the Union into an economy that «will have no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use».

In this perspective, Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 was also enacted, Article 1 of which established the binding target of climate neutrality in the Union by 2050, as well as, by 2030, the internal reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (net of removals), set by Article 4, paragraph 1 (and also recital 26), at least at 55 percent compared to 1990 levels.

More recently, Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 was adopted for the «long-term and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient ecosystems across the Union's terrestrial and marine areas [...] through the restoration of degraded ecosystems» (Article 1, paragraph 1, letter a).

This regulation provides for forms of preservation and improvement of various natural habitats. As to the relationship between habitat protection and the construction of «green» plants, Article 6 (Renewable energy), paragraph 2, of the aforementioned regulation affirms the principle that «[i]n specific and duly justified circumstances, Member States may limit the application of paragraph 1» – i.e., the provision that «the planning, construction and operation of plants for the production of energy from renewable sources [...] shall be presumed to be of overriding public interest» – «to specific parts of their territory, as well as to specific types of technologies or to projects with specific technical characteristics, in accordance with the priorities set out in their national energy and climate plans pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1999».

Therefore, as this Court has already had occasion to affirm, «Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 is concerned with clarifying that Member States may establish that the construction of certain plants impacting specific parts of their territory be excluded from the presumption of overriding public interest, thereby causing the relative favor to lapse» (judgment No. 184 of 2025 and previously, in the same terms, judgment No. 134 of 2025).

10.2.– For the purpose of achieving the targets of combating climate change and – concurrently – utilizing energy from renewable sources set at Union level up to 2030, our country first approved Legislative Decree No. 387 of 29 December 2003 (Implementation of Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market), subsequently amended by Legislative Decree No. 3 of 3 March 2011 (Implementation of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC).

In particular, the regulation of authorization procedures was supplemented by specific guidelines, approved by Ministerial Decree of 10 September 2010, functional to ensuring the correct landscape integration of RES plants, establishing that regions could proceed to indicate areas and sites unsuitable for the installation of specific types of plants.

10.2.1.– Within this context, Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 was placed, implementing the delegation conferred upon the Government by Article 5 of Law No. 53 of 22 April 2021 (Delegation to the Government for the transposition of European directives and the implementation of other European Union acts – European Delegation Law 2019-2020).

Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 then inserted, into Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, paragraph 1-bis, which, prior to being repealed by Article 15, paragraph 1, and Annex D, letter p), of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, as amended by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter q), of Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025, provided as follows (in the text, therefore, in force at the time of the introduction of the main proceedings): «[t]he installation of photovoltaic plants with ground-mounted modules, in areas classified as agricultural by current urban planning schemes, is permitted exclusively in the areas referred to in letters a), limited to interventions for modification, renovation, upgrading, or complete reconstruction of already installed plants, provided they do not entail an increase in the occupied area, c), including quarries already subject to environmental restoration and those with a completed cultivation plan not yet restored, as well as landfills or closed or restored landfill lots, c-bis), c-bis.1) and c-ter), numbers 2) and 3), of paragraph 8 of this Article. The first period shall not apply in the case of projects providing for photovoltaic plants with ground-mounted modules aimed at establishing a renewable energy community pursuant to Article 31 of this Decree, nor in the case of projects implementing other investment measures of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), approved by ECOFIN Council decision of 13 July 2021, as amended by ECOFIN Council decision of 8 December 2023, and of the Complementary Investment Plan to the NRRP (CIP) referred to in Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 59 of 6 May 2021, converted, with amendments, into Law No. 101 of 1 July 2021, or projects necessary for achieving NRRP targets».

The subsequent paragraph 2 further establishes that «[r]eference in Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 8 November 2021, introduced by paragraph 1 of this Article, shall not apply to projects for which, as of the date of entry into force of this Decree, at least one of the administrative procedures, including environmental assessment procedures, necessary for obtaining titles for the construction and operation of plants and related connection works has been initiated or at least one of the titles themselves has been issued».

Both paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, as highlighted in the heading and narrative, are challenged by the remitting judge (with the exception of proceedings registered under register of orders numbers 150 and 178 of 2025).

In implementation of Article 20, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, as thus amended, the Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024 established homogeneous principles and criteria for the identification by law, on the part of regions, of surfaces and areas suitable and unsuitable for installing RES plants (Article 1, paragraph 1, letter b). For the purposes of these proceedings, Article 1, paragraph 2, letter d), of the Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024 provides that «[f]ollowing the definition process referred to in this Decree, the regions, ensuring the appropriate involvement of local authorities, shall identify in their respective territories: [...]; d) areas where the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants is prohibited: agricultural areas for which the prohibition on installing ground-mounted photovoltaic plants applies pursuant to Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 8 November 2021».

10.2.2.– More recently, Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024 intervened to reorganize the complex regulatory framework of the matter. In particular, Article 2, paragraph 2, first period (also challenged here), prior to amendments introduced by Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025, provided as follows: «[t]he interventions referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, are considered to be of public utility, urgent and non-deferrable and may also be located in areas classified as agricultural by current urban planning schemes, in compliance with the provisions of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 8 November 2021».

10.2.3.– Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025, at Article 2, paragraph 1, letter h), introduced new rules regarding the identification of suitable areas, by inserting Article 11-bis (Suitable areas on mainland) into Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, where, at paragraph 2, it is provided that: «[t]he installation of photovoltaic plants with ground-mounted modules, in areas classified as agricultural by current urban planning schemes, is permitted exclusively in the areas referred to in paragraph 1, letters a), limited to interventions for modification, renovation, upgrading, or complete reconstruction of already installed plants, provided they do not entail an increase in the occupied area, c), d), e), f), l), numbers 1) and 2). The first period shall not apply in the case of projects providing for photovoltaic plants with ground-mounted modules aimed at establishing a renewable energy community pursuant to Article 31 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, as well as in the case of projects implementing other investment measures of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) and the Complementary Investment Plan to the NRRP (CIP) referred to in Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 59 of 6 May 2021, converted, with amendments, into Law No. 101 of 1 July 2021, or projects necessary for achieving NRRP targets. The installation of agrivoltaic plants referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1, letter f-bis), through the use of modules placed in a position adequately elevated from the ground, is always permitted».

Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024 was likewise amended by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter a), of Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025 and, in its currently in-force formulation, provides that «[t]he interventions referred to in Article 1, paragraph 1, are considered to be of public utility, urgent and non-deferrable and may also be located in areas classified as agricultural by current urban planning schemes, in compliance with the provisions of Article 11-bis, paragraph 2».

10.2.4.– Lastly, upon conversion, to Article 2, paragraph 1, letter h), of Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025 (which, as stated, introduced Article 11-bis into Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024), the following periods were added: «For the installation of an agrivoltaic plant, the proponent shall provide a sworn declaration drawn up by a qualified professional certifying that the plant is suitable to preserve at least 80 percent of gross marketable production. The declaration shall be attached to the project presented pursuant to Article 9 and in any case made available to the administration as part of control activities».

Today, therefore, the rules governing criteria for identifying areas suitable for installing renewable energy production plants are laid down by Article 11-bis of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, as introduced by Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025. Regions are thus required to identify, by law, areas suitable for installing plants from renewable sources additional to those under paragraph 1 of Article 11-bis of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024 on the basis of this new regulation and, in particular, in compliance with principles and criteria established by subsequent paragraph 4 and targets set by further paragraph 5 (as provided by paragraph 3 of Article 11-bis), and no longer in implementation of Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 and the corresponding Ministerial Decree of 21 June 2024.

Having thus reconstructed the essential traits of European and national legislation concerning photovoltaic plants, we may now proceed to examine the issue submitted to this Court.

11.– As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that, barring variations deemed marginal for decision-making purposes, the referral rulings are, on the merits, superimposable. Indeed, the questions of constitutional legitimacy submitted to this Court have as their object, at least in part, the same provisions and, specifically, Article 2, paragraph 2, last period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024. Certain originating acts also challenge the rule that introduced the censured provision, namely Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024; others challenge directly the censured provision itself, i.e., paragraph 1-bis of Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021. Despite the variety of formal formulations, analogous censures are nonetheless proposed and coinciding parameters are invoked (with the exception of the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025, which, as already noted, unlike the other originating acts, makes no reference to Article 9 of the Constitution).

The joinder of the related proceedings must therefore be ordered so that they may be resolved with a single judgment.

12.– It is necessary first of all to circumscribe the thema decidendum, which, according to this Court's consistent case-law, «is limited to the provisions and parameters indicated in the referral order, excluding the possibility of expanding the thema decidendum proposed by the remitting judge so as to encompass questions formulated by parties which he did not choose to make his own» (ex plurimis, judgment No. 52 of 2026, citing judgments No. 213 of 2025 and No. 239 of 2021; on the point, inter alia, also judgments No. 198 and No. 186 of 2022, No. 239 and No. 147 of 2021, and No. 186 of 2020).

It follows that, as they are not formulated even in the originating acts, the censures deduced by Elements Green Atena srl, Elements Green Ermes srl, Elements Green Demetra srl, Elements Green Nettuno srl, Elements Green Ares srl, and Elements Green Artemide srl in the proceeding registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025 cannot be taken into examination, as they seek to extend the constitutional legitimacy question against paragraph 2 of Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, bearing in mind that, in that proceeding, the TAR for Lazio limits its censure to paragraph 1-bis of Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 and Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024.

The same considerations apply with regard to the briefs filed in proceedings registered under register of orders numbers 164 and 178 of 2025, respectively by Green Sole Renewables Italia 1 srl and by Elements Green Atena srl, Elements Green Ermes srl, Elements Green Demetra srl, Elements Green Nettuno srl, Elements Green Ares srl, and Elements Green Artemide srl, whereby this Court was asked to declare Article 5, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 constitutionally illegitimate for violation of Article 41 of the Constitution as well (a parameter not indicated in the originating acts) and Article 3 of the Constitution under the profile of the breach of reliance (a profile likewise absent in said acts and which, moreover, the remitting judge expressly deemed irrelevant in non-final judgment No. 15502 of 11 August 2025, point 7.1.).

The intervening companies also solicit an additive judgment delimiting the application of the prohibition to «projects for which, as of the date of entry into force of the decree, (i) a GMTS referred to the specific plant had been issued and accepted and (ii) rights necessary for the availability of the plant's areas had been acquired through acts having a date certain».

In the alternative, the intervening companies invoke an interpretive ruling aimed at clarifying how the locution «at least one of the administrative procedures [...] necessary for obtaining titles has been initiated» must be understood in a functional sense, so as to include the regulated grid connection procedure when it has already led to the issuance and acceptance of the guaranteed minimum technical solution (GMTS) and is accompanied by the concrete availability of areas.

It follows that the interested companies aim to expand the thema decidendum, deducing the violation of constitutional parameters and defect profiles not invoked in the originating acts or challenging provisions not censured therein through doubts of constitutional legitimacy.

Said intervening companies also ask this Court to delimit the scope of the prohibition with respect to plants definable as agrivoltaic.

On this point, this Court, in judgment No. 127 of 2026, already recalled that «it is for the administration and the judge to precise the content of the regulatory syntagma» and it is all the more for the judge in the main proceeding to qualify the concrete case upon which they are called to rule.

In any case, for complete argumentation, it must be noted, in point of fact, that, with reference to the questions proposed by the originating act registered under register of orders No. 164 of 2025, relevance is argued on the basis of the presence, in the a quo proceeding, of a project concerning photovoltaic plants with ground-mounted modules, whence the undoubted subsumability of such plant category within the scope of application of the censured prohibition and the irrelevance, with respect to such scrutiny, of solicitations aimed at redefining its operational boundaries regarding so-called «basic» agrivoltaic plants.

Indeed, the remitting judge specifies at point 12 of the order that «[f]rom the documentation produced by the applicant, it emerges that at least one of the initiated projects concerns photovoltaic plants with ground-mounted modules in an agricultural area, as such subject to the prohibition under Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63/2024, with the consequent relevance of the constitutional legitimacy questions raised in the appeal».

13.– That being said, it is necessary to examine first of all the preliminary procedural questions.

13.1.– In the first place, this Court notes that despite the ius superveniens, the relevance and non-manifest unfoundedness of the raised questions persist.

It must indeed be highlighted that the entry into force of Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025 and the repeal of the censured rule produce no effects on the present constitutional legitimacy proceeding.

On this point, this Court has already reaffirmed, with the aforementioned judgment No. 127 of 2026, certain principles of constitutional procedural law specifically pertinent in this case.

When the main proceeding has as its object the challenge of an act, the principle tempus regit actum applies, such that the judge is required to assess its legitimacy in light of the rules in force at the time of its adoption. It follows that, since the TAR for Lazio is called upon to scrutinize a ministerial decree enacted in implementation of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, that provision remains applicable in the main proceeding. Nor is the transitional legislation introduced by Decree-Law No. 175 of 2025 relevant in a contrary sense, as it concerns ongoing «procedures» and does not extend to the different case, relevant here, of challenging a general act that would have precluded the very initiation of those «procedures».

As to the requirement of non-manifest unfoundedness, not every supervening modification mandates a renewed assessment of admissibility prerequisites: such a requirement does not exist both when the censured rule continues to find application ratione temporis and when subsequent legislation impacts it by aggravating the deduced defects. In the present case, the ius superveniens not only does not eliminate the doubts of constitutional legitimacy already put forward, but, for certain profiles, accentuates them. The new legislation, in fact, not only fails to adopt the approach aimed at excluding from the prohibition all agrivoltaic plants, including those with ground-mounted panels, but limits the exemption solely to plants with modules «placed in a position adequately elevated from the ground», further restricting usable agricultural areas and introducing specific verification burdens.

13.2.– According to the defense of the President of the Council of Ministers, the questions raised by the TAR for Lazio are inadmissible, both because they are formulated in merely hypothetical terms and because they lack adequate factual support.

The remitting judge assumed indeed, without concrete evidence, that the prohibition on installing ground-mounted photovoltaic plants in agricultural areas could compromise the achievement of European Union targets regarding renewable energy. In this regard, the State Attorney General's Office highlights how the remitting TAR failed to consider that agricultural areas are not entirely subtracted from photovoltaic use, as the possibility of constructing advanced agrivoltaic plants remains, which are compatible with the concurrent agricultural exploitation of land and are not precluded by the censured legislation.

The exception is not well-founded.

Indeed, in the present case, the remitting judge, in addition to analytically setting out the arguments supporting the non-manifest unfoundedness of the censures, identified specifically and with sufficient determinateness the reasons for the deemed constitutional illegitimacy of the censured rules, referring, inter alia, to this Court's consistent case-law on the principle of maximum dissemination of renewable energy production plants (judgments No. 121 and No. 77 of 2022, No. 106 of 2020, No. 286 of 2019, No. 69 of 2018, No. 13 of 2014, and No. 44 of 2011).

The contours of the censures are clear and each of the originating acts is adequately reasoned regarding the reasons for the deemed conflict with the invoked constitutional parameters. Nor are the motivational deficiencies highlighted by the State Attorney General's Office such as to compromise the argumentative path followed by the remitting judge (judgments No. 72 of 2026 and No. 202 of 2023).

More precisely, the omitted concrete demonstration of the effective risk of failing to achieve European Union targets concerning energy production from renewable sources, allegedly connected to the censured provisions, constitutes an issue pertaining to the merits of the controversy rather than procedure.

13.3.– Conversely, the questions raised by the TAR for Lazio in the proceeding registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025 must be declared inadmissible for lack of reasoning regarding relevance.

Taking into account the saving clause under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 («Reference in Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 8 November 2021, introduced by paragraph 1 of this Article, shall not apply to projects for which, as of the date of entry into force of this Decree, at least one of the administrative procedures, including environmental assessment procedures, necessary for obtaining titles for the construction and operation of plants and related connection works has been initiated or at least one of the titles themselves has been issued»), whereas in all other originating acts the judge specifies that for the initiatives in question no administrative procedure necessary for obtaining authorization titles had yet been initiated within the term under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, in the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025 such specification is missing.

Indeed, in the factual part, the following indication is found: «In particular: i) Elements Green Atena S.r.l. has an ongoing procedure for constructing an agrivoltaic plant with a capacity equal to 37.80 MW, to be installed in the Municipality of Sassari, with respect to which an Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") application has been submitted; ii) Elements Green Demetra S.r.l. has an ongoing procedure for constructing an agrivoltaic plant with a capacity equal to 41.552 MWp, to be installed in the Municipality of Sassari, with respect to which the EIA application was declared admissible on 4 December 2023; iii) Ermes [recte: Elements] Green Nettuno S.r.l. has an ongoing procedure for constructing an agrivoltaic plant with a capacity equal to 40,194 kWp, to be installed in the Municipality of Sassari, with respect to which an EIA application has been submitted (cf. docs. 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4 of the applicant companies' production)».

Well then: according to this Court's consistent case-law, the omitted or insufficient description of the factual situation forming the subject matter of the main proceeding – which cannot be remedied through direct reading of the acts of that proceeding, as this is precluded by the principle of self-sufficiency of the originating act – prevents the necessary verification of the question's relevance and consequently determines its inadmissibility (inter alia, judgment No. 301 of 2012 citing, ex plurimis, judgment No. 338 of 2011 and orders No. 93 of 2012 and No. 260 of 2011).

It follows that the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised with the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025 must be declared inadmissible for lack of reasoning regarding relevance.

14.– On the merits, the remitting judge raises questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (and Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021) and Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, deducing, first and foremost, the alleged violation of Articles 11 and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, «also in relation to the principles expressed by Directive (EU) 2018/2001 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999», as amended by Directive 2023/2413/EU, as well as Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, assuming that the prohibition provided for therein hinders the achievement of energy efficiency targets.

Furthermore, the TAR for Lazio deduces the violation of Article 9 of the Constitution, for presumed conflict with the principle of integration of protections under Article 11 TFEU and Article 37 of the Nice Charter (rules, moreover, not invoked as interposing norms in the operative part) and with the protection of environmental assets (with a censure, indeed, closely linked to the preceding one).

Finally, it complains of the violation of Article 3 of the Constitution, for presumed non-observance of the principle of proportionality.

15.– The aforementioned questions must be examined, as a priority, in light of case-law handed down in the meantime, after the adoption of the originating acts.

Subsequent to the filing of the originating acts indicated in the heading, in fact, this Court, with judgment No. 127 of 2026, declared unfounded certain questions of constitutional legitimacy, raised by the same TAR for Lazio, concerning Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 and Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, entirely analogous to the present ones.

15.1.– As to the first question, the aforementioned ruling affirmed that Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 does not preclude the installation of all solar energy production plants in zones classified as agricultural by current urban planning schemes, but only that of photovoltaic plants with ground-mounted modules, while the construction of agrivoltaic plants «with modules not mounted on the ground» remains permitted, as such plants are suitable for preserving the continuity of cultivation and agropastoral activities at the installation site.

Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 was introduced, in fact, with the purpose of containing, also for landscape and environmental reasons, the expansion of ground-mounted photovoltaic plants on agricultural soils, which could determine significant effects, such as the loss of cultivable land, the fragmentation of the agrarian landscape, the reduction of biodiversity, and the potential emergence of conflicts with regional and local agricultural and environmental planning instruments.

This Court, again with judgment No. 127 of 2026, also specified that: i) Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, in the text applicable ratione temporis and resulting from the amendment introduced by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, nonetheless permitted the installation of ground-mounted module plants in areas expressly identified by the legislature; ii) paragraph 1-bis of the same Article 20 provided for additional exemptions from the prohibition; iii) Article 5, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 also set forth a safeguard clause in favor of ongoing procedures.

It must therefore be excluded that the censured rule introduces an absolute prohibition on installing plants intended for solar energy production on agricultural land.

15.2.– As to the second question, this Court noted how the safeguarding of soil and agricultural production and the promotion of energy production from renewable sources constitute environmental policies that are inextricably interdependent and connected.

The balancing between multiple constitutionally relevant goods and interests in this matter is by its nature complex and requires economic, political, and social evaluations reserved to the legislature's discretion in the exercise of the balancing incumbent upon it. It follows that the interest in constructing RES energy plants cannot be considered aprioristically and automatically prevalent over the equally protected interest in protecting the agrarian environment and the continuity of cultivation. It follows, furthermore, that the complexity of the evaluations to be performed in this matter circumscribes this Court's review to ascertaining the non-manifest unreasonableness of legislative choices, choices that – always in compliance with constitutional parameters – could in the future operate different balancings in protecting the various goods and interests at stake, as already observed in the cited judgment No. 127 of 2026: «The legislature's evaluations may [...] also change in light of the concrete yield of the various rules dictated from time to time [...] and of changing contextual conditions (climatic, scientific, economic, etc.)», in particular regarding the evolution of land consumption and the trend of the energy crisis.

15.3.– With respect to the third and final question as well, it is useful to recall what this Court stated in the aforementioned judgment No. 127 of 2026, where it was noted that the solution provided by the national legislature represents the outcome of a non-unreasonable balancing between different interests, aimed at making the safeguarding of agricultural activity compatible with solar energy production.

In that ruling, it was also highlighted how the scrutinized legislation passes the proportionality test. First of all, it appears suitable with respect to the pursued purpose, as it impacts directly upon the limited and non-reproducible good at issue here, namely soil. The legislation is furthermore necessary, since the objective of preserving the destination and productive agricultural function of the land could not be adequately ensured if the installation of ground-mounted module plants were permitted. Nor, finally, is it disproportionate in the strict sense, since the sacrifice imposed on economic operators does not exceed the threshold of tolerability, as they remain free to pursue their entrepreneurial aims simply by investing in agrivoltaic plants with modules not mounted on the ground. The greater burdenomeness of such plants, complained of by some even in oral argument, while it may be taken into account by the legislature for other purposes, cannot alter a balancing in which goods of primary constitutional relevance directly or indirectly connected to environmental protection take center stage.

Equally unfounded was the censure of unreasonableness already deemed to be, this Court having clarified (in addition to the already recalled boundaries of reasonableness review in a matter marked by a high rate of complexity and legislative discretion) that «[t]he circumstance that there may exist, as a mere factual and contingent datum, degraded or temporarily unused land for agricultural purposes, does not allow one to disregard the urbanistic vocation imparted to the plot by reason of its planning destination», specifying furthermore that, «if the concrete agricultural utilization of the area is not relevant, its abstract usability as such is» (again judgment No. 127 of 2026).

In this perspective, this Court further observed that the agricultural potential of the land (not definitively transformed), as it emerges from its urbanistic classification, mandates considering also the possible future destination of the plot for high-value crops, a possibility that would be compromised by generalized employment of agrivoltaic plants with ground-mounted modules.

In the same ruling, it was clarified, finally, that the agricultural value protected by the censured rule is not only that inherent in high-value crops, but is also that linked to traditional crops and land uses for agricultural purposes.

16.– The thema decidendum of the present constitutional proceeding and the grounds of censure are substantially analogous to those deduced in the orders that prompted the cited judgment of dismissal No. 127 of 2026.

As no reasons are discernible for departing from the recently adopted decision, and the originating acts indicated in the heading add no new arguments compared to those already examined, the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 (and Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021) and Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, raised with reference to Articles 3, 9, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, also in relation to the principles expressed by Directive 2018/2001/EU and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, as amended by Directive 2023/2413/EU and Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, must be declared unfounded, in line with what this Court already decided, in an analogous case, in relation to coinciding parameters, with judgment No. 127 of 2026.

17.– In light of the above, the request formulated exclusively in the briefs of the parties within the framework of the proceeding registered under register of orders No. 156 of 2025, soliciting a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU for an express ruling on the alleged conflict between Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 and Union legislation concerning the «strategy» for climate change adaptation, cannot be granted.

The remitting judge did not in fact introduce into the proceedings argumentation suitable for demonstrating that the possibilities of utilizing agricultural land for solar energy production – ranging from agrivoltaic plants «with modules not mounted on the ground», permitted in principle on agricultural areas, down to the additional hypotheses provided for by the censured legislation – prove so scant as to compromise the achievement of European targets on renewable energy. Lacking probative factual data and reasoning validating their interpretation in the sense represented by private parties, the defect of violation of Union law appears merely hypothetical and unproven. Nor do party defenses (and documents) lead to a different conclusion, which – beyond any consideration regarding the relationship between said defenses, the originating act, and this Court's review – offer no punctual evidence of such defect.

on those grounds

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

having joined the proceedings,

1) declares inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 8 November 2021, bearing «Implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, as amended by Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652», as introduced by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 15 May 2024 (Urgent provisions for agricultural, fisheries, and aquaculture enterprises, as well as for enterprises of national strategic interest), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 101 of 12 July 2024, and of Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 25 November 2024, bearing «Regulation of administrative regimes for the production of energy from renewable sources, in implementation of Article 26, paragraphs 4 and 5, letters b) and d), of Law No. 118 of 5 August 2022», raised – with reference to Articles 3, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, also in relation to the principles expressed by Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and by Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, amending Regulations (EC) No. 663/2009 and (EC) No. 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 94/22/EC, 98/70/EC, 2009/31/EC, 2009/73/EC, 2010/31/EU, 2012/27/EU and 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 2009/119/EC and (EU) 2015/652, and repealing Regulation (EU) No. 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652, as well as by Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No. 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 («European Climate Law») – by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Section Three, by means of the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 178 of 2025, indicated in the heading;

2) declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, as converted, and of Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, raised, with reference to Articles 3, 9, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, also in relation to the principles expressed by Directive 2018/2001/EU and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, as amended by Directive 2023/2413/EU, as well as Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Section Three, by means of the orders registered under register of orders numbers 156, 164, and 168 of 2025, indicated in the heading;

3) declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021, as introduced by Article 5, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024, as converted, and of Article 2, paragraph 2, first period, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of 2024, raised, with reference to Articles 3, 9, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, also in relation to the principles expressed by Directive 2018/2001/EU and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, as amended by Directive 2023/2413/EU, as well as Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Section Three, by means of the non-final judgment registered under register of orders No. 150 of 2025, indicated in the heading.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 23 September 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Massimo LUCIANI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed in the Registry on 5 November 2026