1) EU Commission: Italian aid scheme for hydrogen development approved

On 30 March 2026, the European Commission approved, under the State aid rules, an Italian scheme worth EUR 6 billion in support of the production of renewable hydrogen for the transport and industrial sectors. The decision forms part of the framework of the 2020 European Hydrogen Strategy and the Clean Industrial Deal.

The scheme, which will remain in force until 31 December 2029, has the objective of supporting an annual production of 200,000 tonnes of renewable hydrogen, encompassing both hydrogen produced by electrolysis from renewable energy sources and hydrogen obtained from biogenic sources through biological, bio-thermochemical and thermochemical processes.

Support will be provided by means of two-way contracts for difference: the strike price for hydrogen will be determined through competitive tendering procedures and, depending on the market trend of the price of the alternative fuel, it will be Italy to pay the difference to producers or, conversely, producers to pay it to the State.

The Commission assessed the measure pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the 2022 Guidelines on State Aid for Climate, Environmental Protection and Energy, finding it necessary, proportionate and having an incentive effect, with positive environmental effects sufficient to outweigh any potential distortions of competition.

2) Council of State: on the annulment in self-redress (annullamento in autotutela) of a building permit and the applicability of Article 38 of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001

By judgment No. 2542/2026, published on 26 March 2026, the Council of State confirmed the lawfulness of a demolition order in respect of a construction carried out pursuant to a building permit subsequently annulled for lack of entitlement on the part of the applicant, due to the fact that the erected construction also stood on land belonging to third parties.

The judges at Palazzo Spada reiterated  that the issuance of a building title assumes a minimum degree of verification as to the effective ownership of the land subject to the intervention, as the Administration being unable to disregard objective evidence of the absence of the relevant qualifying precondition, even without substituting itself for the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts in relation to the determination of land ownership (titolarità dominicale).

It is further confirmed that Article 38 of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001 applies exclusively in the presence of procedural or formal defects in the building measure, in accordance with the consolidated position of the Plenary Session (Adunanza Plenaria) No. 17/2020, operating through a sequential system of remedies (validation, demolition, fiscal regularization).

It follows that, in the presence of substantive defects affecting the qualifying preconditions of the title, access to the relevant regime remains precluded, with the consequent obligatory nature of the demolition order. A different interpretation would result in an improper use of the institute in a substantially regularizing function, contrary to the principles of urban planning and orderly management of the territory.

To access the decision, click here.

3) Council of State: the decision to extend an ongoing service contract does not entail an implicit favourable assessment of the contractor’s professional reliability

By judgment No. 2464/2026, published on 24 March 2026, the Council of State clarified that the decision of the contracting authority to grant a technical extension of a framework agreement during execution, pending the launch of a new tender procedure, does not entail an implicit favourable assessment of the professional reliability of the contractor.

In particular, according to the Council of State, the extension of a public contract responds to inescapable and imperative requirements of service continuity which have no bearing whatsoever on assessments of the (un)reliability of the same operator.

It follows that — even in the presence of any (prior) extensions granted in respect of the same economic operator — the contracting authority may certainly base a finding of serious professional misconduct where it identifies the symptomatic elements (i.e. prior terminations ordered for non-performance, imposition of contractual penalties) pursuant to Article 98 of the Public Procurement Code, without such prior extensions being considered sufficient to eliminate or otherwise “offset” those concerns.

To consult the decision, click here.

4) ANAC: the balancing point between participation requirements and competition among economic operators

By Resolution No. 86/2025 of 11 March 2026, the National Anti-Corruption Authority (“ANAC“) addressed the relationship that must exist between participation requirements and the general principles of market access and competition provided for by European and national legislation on public contracts.

In particular, in the context of the matter underlying the ANAC resolution, a municipality had provided, among the economic-financial and technical-professional requirements relating to a public tender procedure, that: (i) competing economic operators must have performed, in the last 10 years, ordinary management, assessment and compulsory collection services for local revenues in at least 3 municipalities with a number of inhabitants equal to or greater than that of the Contracting Authority (Stazione Appaltante); and that (ii) at least one of the said services must have included the assessment and compulsory collection service for the tourism tax (imposta di soggiorno).

The party that submitted the report to ANAC considered that the imposition of the said requirements would result in a clear infringement of the principle of favor partecipationis, as it was aimed at unduly restricting participation in the tender.

ANAC, referring to Article 10, paragraph 3, of the Public Procurement Code — pursuant to which “[…] contracting authorities and awarding entities may introduce special requirements, of an economic-financial and technical-professional nature, relevant and proportionate to the subject matter of the contract, bearing in mind the public interest in the largest possible number of potential competitors and favouring, […] market access and the possibility of growth for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises […]” — and to Article 100, paragraph 2, which imposes on contracting authorities the obligation to ask for requirements that are proportionate and relevant to the subject matter of the tender, affirmed on the one hand that (a) contracting authorities are vested with broad discretion in drafting tender documents and in introducing provisions capable of limiting the pool of competitors, while on the other hand that (b) such discretion cannot be exercised in a manner that provides for requirements that are excessively and unreasonably restrictive of competition.

After reviewing the most relevant judicial guidance on the relationship between discretion in selecting special participation requirements for tenders and the protection of the principle of competition, with specific reference to the case in examination, ANAC held that: (i) the requirement referred to in point (i) above could be considered consistent with the characteristics of the award to which it related and therefore not excessive; and (ii) the requirement referred to in point (ii) appeared unreasonably restrictive of participation in the procedure, without the municipality in question having provided adequate and sufficient justification for such a choice, and accordingly invited it to remove that last requirement by way of self-redress (autotutela) and to identify, if appropriate, an alternative requirement of less restrictive scope.