1) Law converting the so-called “Piano Casa” (Housing Plan) published in the Official Gazette
On 3 July 2026, Law No. 116 of 2 July 2026 was published in the Official Gazette, converting into law, with amendments, Decree-Law No. 66/2026 containing urgent provisions for the so-called Housing Plan.
Compared with the provisions of the decree-law (already analyzed here), the conversion law confirms the general purposes of the Housing Plan, while introducing significant amendments. In particular, the law:
- clarifies the subjective scope of application of the Housing Plan by identifying the categories of beneficiaries (which also include both private and public-sector workers, with particular reference to school staff, healthcare personnel, police forces, the National Fire Brigade, and the Armed Forces);
- specifies the rules applicable to implementing entities and their operational scope, clarifying that such entities may include not only bodies established or participated in by local authorities, but also, more generally, all entities operating in the field of public and social housing; and
- introduces a new guarantee fund for access to housing by households including persons with disabilities and expands measures relating to service accommodation for Armed Forces and Guardia di Finanza personnel.
The law entered into force on 4 July 2026.
2) Italian Supreme Court: on the unfairness of penalty clauses in preliminary real estate sale agreements concluded by consumers
By judgment No. 21771/2026, published on 25 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court, Second Civil Section, ruled on the unfairness of penalty clauses in preliminary real estate sale agreements concluded between professionals and consumers, clarifying that the provision allowing the promissory seller, in the event of failure to execute the final deed, to retain the entire advance payment made as a penalty is not excluded from an assessment of unfairness.
The Italian Supreme Court, after having noted the applicability of consumer law also to the preliminary contract for the sale of real estate, where they are concluded between a professional acting in the course of business activities and another party contracting for purposes unrelated to their business or professional activity, the Supreme Court held that, as a consequence of the application of aforementioned consumer protection law and pursuant to Article 1469-bis(3)(6) of the Civil Code, there is a presumption that clauses which, in the event of default, provide for the payment of a manifestly excessive sum are unfair.
The Court also clarified that protective nullity (nullità di protezione) may be raised ex officio, even in proceedings before the Italian Supreme Court and in the subsequent remand proceedings, without a final judgment or procedural preclusion being able to impede the effectiveness of consumer protection. The judicial reduction of a manifestly excessive penalty clause does not, therefore, preclude a subsequent assessment of whether it is unfair.
To access the decision, click here.