The stated aim of the reform is precisely to promote competition in the property market and to facilitate the circulation of assets, both real estate and registered personal property, originating from donations and subsequently purchased by third parties.

The main changes are as follows: if the forced heirs bring an action for reduction, seeking to reduce or annul a gift that infringes their statutory share, but the donee has sold the property to a third party for valuable consideration, that third party may no longer be required to return the property to the estate (Article 563 of the Civil Code).

The forced heirs may bring an action only against the third party who has received the property by way of a gift, limited to the benefit actually received, and exclusively where the donee is found to be insolvent and the third party acquired the asset gratuitously.

The third-party purchaser is therefore “protected” from any claims by the aggrieved heir if the asset was acquired by the third party for valuable consideration.

In any event, forced heirs retain the right to bring an action for reduction against the donee, who must compensate in cash forcedheirs whose shares have been infringed or who have been pretermitted to the extent necessary to make up the share reserved for them.

A further change of great practical significance is the abolition of the institution of out-of-court opposition to a gift.

Under the previous legislation, the heirs entitled to a statutory share could “block” the running of the twenty-year period of proprietary protection — the period within which it was possible to take action to recover the asset even against a third-party purchaser — by serving notice and registering a specific deed of out-of-court objection to the donation, to be renewed periodically. This mechanism effectively made the uncertainty regarding the “certainty of title” of an asset derived from a gift permanent, even decades after the gift itself.

Under the reform, this provision is repealed for estates opened after 18 December 2025: statutory heirs will no longer have the power to block the free transfer of the asset through this mechanism. The protection afforded to them is now exclusively pecuniary in nature (i.e. the right to a cash payment from the donee), and no longer in rem in nature (i.e. the recovery of the asset itself).

Set out below is a brief overview of the further changes resulting from the entry into force of the Law in question.

The status of encumbrances [2] and mortgages created by the donee

In light of the amendments made to Article 561 of the Civil Code, if the properties returned as a result of reduction are encumbered by charges or mortgages, such encumbrances remain effective, as the  principle of “discharge” of mortgages, which characterised the previous legislation, is no longer applied. The property is, in fact, returned with all the encumbrances and restrictions established by the legatee/donee, and the latter remains obliged to compensate the forced heirs in cash for the resulting reduction in the value of the property, to the extent necessary to make up the share reserved for them. The same rules apply to the donation of movable property registered in public registers (Article 2690 of the Civil Code).

The registration of the application for reduction

The above provision safeguarding the purchase of a third party who has acquired rights from the donee is without prejudice to the provisions of Article 2652(I)(1) of the Civil Code, with the consequence that the action for reduction is enforceable against third parties acquiring rights from the donee by means of a deed registered or entered in the register after the registration of the application for reduction.

Furthermore, in conjunction with the new provisions referred to above, Article 2652(8) of the Civil Code has also been amended. Consequently, the time limit available to the heir entitled to a reserved share to register the claim for reduction and maintain its enforceability against third parties deriving rights from the heir or legatee is reduced from ten to three years.

In other words, the action for reduction may be enforced against third parties who have acquired rights for valuable consideration from the heir or legatee for a period of three years from the opening of the succession; after three years, the principle of registration of the claim for reduction or of the third party’s purchase applies.

Transitional regime

Finally, paragraph 2 of Article 44 of Law No. 182 of 2 December 2025 also introduces transitional provisions, specifying that the new rules on actions for reduction apply to successions opened after the entry into force of the law in question (i.e. after 18 December 2025).

For successions opened prior to that date, however, the previous legislation continues to apply.

— with the result that an action for the return of the property may still be brought against the donee’s successors in title — provided that at least one of the following conditions is met:

• the application for reduction has been served and registered prior to the entry into force of the new legislation;
• the claim for reduction is served and registered within six months of the law coming into force;
• within the same six-month period, an out-of-court notice of opposition to the gift is served and registered against the donee and its successors in title.

If the application for reduction or the notice of opposition is not served and registered within six months of the reform coming into force, the new rules will also apply to successions already opened before that date, once the aforementioned six-month period has elapsed.

Conclusions

The shift in the protection afforded to aggrieved forced heirs, moving from restitution (recovery of the property) to compensation (monetary compensation), subject to the exceptions mentioned above, will hopefully provide greater protection to purchasers of donated property, who will no longer risk having the property taken away years after the purchase.

Secondly, credit institutions will certainly be more inclined to accept properties acquired by way of gift as mortgage collateral, thereby making access to credit less complicated.

[1] The reform involved amendments to Articles 561, 562, 563, 2652 and 2690 of the Italian Civil Code.

[2] Real or personal rights of enjoyment established by the donee, planning restrictions (building agreements, deeds of obligation), restrictions on disposal (seizures, attachments).

Pursuant to Regional Law  No. 19/2022, anyone may submit comments within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice of filing with the municipal secretary's office.

An analysis of the adopted text of the NTA reveals that among the most important novelties are:

• confirmation of the protection of the historic centre and of its residential nature: the current boundaries of the historic city are maintained and the possibility of implementing volumetric increases is excluded; 

• changes concerning intended use: a subdivision of uses on the basis of five “functional macro-categories” and their demand for infrastructure service is introduced, namely: (i) residential (which includes  single dwellings, collective dwellings and dwellings for accommodation use, including bed and breakfast facilities, guest houses and holiday homes); (ii) tourist and accommodation (hotel and non-hotel accommodation); (iii) production and office (including, inter alia, productive handicraft, wholesale trade, warehouses and storehouses; logistics; data centres); (iv) commercial; (v) rural. 

• removal of the provisions limiting hotel size to a maximum of 60 beds;

• restrictions on further transformations of the Roman countryside;

• regulations aimed at simplifying urban regeneration works, thus encouraging the recovery of the existing building heritage while respecting the principle of land consumption;

• specific rules for recovery of abandoned buildings – applicable regardless of the functional use - identified on the basis of minutes approved by a specific resolution of the Capitolin Council. Within three years from the date of approval of the aforementioned resolution, the owners of such buildings may submit a proposal for an implementation plan or an application for a suitable permit for works to be carried out directly aimed at the recovery of the property. Such works, moreover, may benefit from incentives and bonuses (including a reduction of the building charge); 

• specific rules for social housing, including student and senior housing; 

• provisions concerning the recovery of cinemas, sports facilities and the use of the coastline.

Resolution No. 169 of 11 December 2024 is available at the following link: Deliberazione Assemblea Capitolina n. 169-2024.

it should be noted that - following the publication of the adoption resolution - for the purpose of issuing/submitting the relevant building permits, the so-called “safeguard measures” will apply, which require verification of the compliance of each building work with the provisions set out in the town planning instrument in force and in the adopted one. 

Our firm is available for any clarification.

The query, marked by divergent case law, was referred to the Plenary Meeting, which - by decision 14/2024 - provided important clarifications.

The case

The case submitted to the Plenary Meeting originates from a very complex situation: in 2010 a building permit was issued for the construction of an underground garage. 

Following a complaint, a criminal investigation was initiated, which resulted in a judgment containing, among other things, the condemnation of the ad acta commissioners who had issued the building permit and the assessment of the “absolute and macroscopic illegality of the building permit”.

Subsequently, the Municipality of Sorrento notified the owner of the land and the contractor of the measure (not challenged) acknowledging the lapse of the 2010 building permit, due to expiry of the time limit for completion of the works.

Then the Municipality ordered, pursuant to Article 31 of the Building Consolidation Act (Presidential Decree No. 380/2001), “the reinstatement of the state of places as it was prior to the execution of the works partially carried out under the building permit”, moreover holding that the lapse of the building permit “encompasses any immediate assessment as to the legitimacy of the building permit”.

The decision was challenged by the owners and the contractor before the Regional Administrative Court of Campania, claiming that the works, having been carried out in compliance with a permit valid at the time they were done, could not be considered illegal. The Regional Administrative Court of Campania confirmed the legitimacy of the demolition order, considering that the incomplete works were incompatible with urban planning regulations. 

The query and the views of case law 

The main query submitted to the Plenary Meeting was: what rules apply to works partially carried out under a lapsed building permit and not completed under a new permit?

The reference rules are contained in Article 15  of the Building Consolidation Act, providing for limited duration of building permits, with automatic forfeiture for works not completed by the deadline[1]. 

Article 15 of the Building Consolidation Act verbatim states that “(…) the time limit for the commencement of work may not exceed one year from the issuance of the permit; the time limit for completion, within which the work must be completed, may not exceed three years from the commencement of work. Once such terms have expired, the permit lapses automatically for the part not carried out, unless, before expiry, an extension is requested. An extension may be granted, by reasoned decision, for facts that have arisen that are extraneous to the will of the permit holder, or in consideration of the size of the work to be carried out, of its particular technical-constructive characteristics, or of technical-execution difficulties that have arisen after the beginning of the works, or in the case of public works whose financing is envisaged in several financial years. (…)

3. The execution of the part of the work not completed by the scheduled deadline is subject to the issue of a new permit for the work still to be carried out, unless the latter falls within those that can be carried out by certified notice of commencement of work (…)

4. The permit lapses with the entry into force of conflicting urban planning provisions, unless work has already begun and is completed within three years from the date of commencement”.

Therefore, what is the fate of works carried out under a lapsed permit?

Case law is split into two views:

• Conservative approach: works carried out in compliance with a valid permit cannot be considered illegal, even if the permit has lapsed: the lapse of the building permit applies ex nunc, preserving the legitimacy of the works already constructed[2];

• Demolition approach: works not completed and without autonomous functionality must be deemed illegal, since the lapse of the permit makes their permanence illegal[3].

• “in the case of buildings lacking autonomy and functionality, the Municipality must order their demolition and restoration to the original condition pursuant to Article 31 of Presidential Decree No. 380/2001, as being constructed in full conflict with the building permit;

• - if the building permit involved the construction of a plurality of functionally autonomous buildings (e.g. cottages) that are compliant with the building permit considering such permit as fractioned, the constructed buildings - without prejudice to the need to verify whether the urban development works have been carried out and without prejudice to the need for them to be carried out in any case - must be deemed to be based on a suitable permit, even if the constructed buildings are not fully completed, but - insofar as they are characterised by all the constitutive and essential elements - need only minor works that do not require the issuance of a new building permit;

  1. if the incomplete but functionally autonomous works have non-conformities that cannot be qualified as serious, the Administration may apply the sanction laid down by Article 34 of the Consolidation Act;

• the party concerned has the possibility, where all the conditions are met, to obtain a permit to preserve the existing structure and to request a conformity assessment pursuant to Article 36 of the Consolidation Act in the case of “minor” works (in terms of perimeter, volumes, heights) with respect to those authorised, so as to provide the building - which is per se functional and usable - with a suitable permit in terms of its regularity from an urban planning point of view”.

The judgement of the Plenary Meeting

The Plenary Meeting, in an articulate decision, while recognising the validity of some of the arguments of the conservative approach, established clear criteria for distinguishing the situations, emphasising that:

The Plenary Meeting emphasised some fundamental principles:

• compliance with the project: the carrying out of the works must strictly comply with the approved project. Partial constructions deviating from the permit are to be considered illegal;

• protection of the territory: the ruling highlights the importance of preserving the integrity of landscape and town planning, avoiding the permanence of incomplete and disfiguring buildings;

• tempus regit actum: new permits must comply with the town planning regulations in force at the time of issue, ensuring adequate control over the development of the territory.

[1] The recent publication of the “Milleproroghe 2025” decree (Decree-Law 202/2024, Official Gazette No. 302 of 27 December) further extended the deadlines for the start and end of construction works, which had already been subject to previous extensions since Decree-Law 21/2022 (Ukraine Decree). The decree provides for a 36-month extension for:

• works’ start date and end date  relating to SCIAs (certified notices of commencement of works) and building permits issued or formed until 31 December 2024.

• validity of town-planning conventions (e.g., parcelling out) and the relevant implementation plans, provided they are not in conflict with new planning instruments or liens for environmental and cultural protection.

The extension is not automatic:  the party concerned must submit an official notice to enforce the measure. Extention is subject to verification of certain requirements:

• building permits must not have expired at the time of the notice;

• there must be no incompatibility with new planning instruments or landscape or cultural liens;

• the measure applies also to SCIAs and landscape permits (standard and simplified) already extended under former rules, such as the extraordinary regime of Decree Law No. 69/2013 and the emergency rules of Law 27/2020.

[2]See Council of State 5258/2022; Council of State 5588/2019.

[3] See Council of State 8605/2019; Council of State 10291/2023. 

More specifically, in the case at issue, a lessee brought legal proceedings on the assumption of having leased – under a contractual relationship that the lessor claimed being  “de facto” – a room in an apartment located in Rome, paying a rent of Euro 500.00 per month from October 2011 to June 2015.

Therefore, the claimant acted to obtain a declaration of invalidity of the lease agreement and an order for the lessor to reimburse the rents paid.

The Supreme Court set out the following legal principle: «in case of invalidity of a lease agreement, the lessee is entitled to reimbursement, pursuant to Article 2033 of the Italian Civil Code, of the rents paid to the lessor in implementation of the agreement, without prejudice to the latter’s right to claim, pursuant to Article 2041 of the Italian Civil Code, the existence of   unjustified enrichment, enforcing an indemnity credit to be, however, awarded to the extent of the decrease in assets suffered in providing the service and not in the measure of the loss of the profit that could have been obtained from the existence of a valid contractual relationship».

So, these are the conclusions that we can draw from the reading of the above judgment and legal principle:

• the lessee's claim for repayment falls within the scope of the rule set out in Article 2033 of the Italian Civil Code (undue payment) according to which “whoever has made an undue payment is entitled to be refunded the amount paid”;

• legislative scenarios in which, notwithstanding the cessation of the contractual obligation, the services cannot be repaid are to be considered exceptions to the general rule (this applies, for example, in the case of termination for non-performance of the agreement);

• since the lessee has, in any event, enjoyed the property - an undisputed historical fact - the lessor is entitled to claim compensation in order to correct the contractual imbalance created, on the basis of an objective assessment of the benefit obtained by the lessee and, therefore, within the limits of the financial loss suffered by the performer of the service rendered by virtue of the invalid agreement. Thus, the lessor is not entitled to obtain the profit lost that it could have obtained by entering into a valid agreement;

• The court cannot rule ex officio on unjust enrichment, which remains an exception reserved to the party (in the present case the lessor failed to appear in court).

The ruling in question also allows us to recall that, as stated by the Supreme Court in its judgment No. 9475 of 9 April 2021, a lease concluded in a verbal form and not registered, is affected by relative and protective nullity that can only be enforced by the lessee and cannot be established ex officio by the court.

Let's see, in a nutshell, its main contents.

***

Why issue guidelines?

To provide, while waiting for the approval of a punctual regulatory measure, uniform guidelines to municipal administrations, including from the urban and environmental point of view.

What are data centers?

They are rooms, buildings or physical facilities that house the IT infrastructure for the creation, execution and deployment of applications and services and for the storage and management of data associated with those applications and services.

How are data centers classified?

Based on size, energy requirements and computing power. Specifically, they are distinguished into:

• Hyperscale: large facilities, with energy requirements of more than 100 MW, that have, as a rule, phased development with successive implementation times dictated by the gradual growth of service requirements for end customers.
• Colocation: medium-sized facilities, with energy requirements of more than 5 MW.
• Edge: usually small facilities (sometimes just a container), with energy requirements of less than 1 MW.
• Pure crypto-mining ("mining"): small containers or buildings with high energy requirements, but operated with a few simple resources.

To the above must then be added HPCs (high performance computing), which can be of various sizes and with different energy requirements, but, in general, are facilities with high demands on computing capacity for purposes such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other complex computing operations.

What is the intended use of data centers?

Data Centers are compatible with manufacturing and office uses.

Where can Data Centers be located?

Municipalities can assess the suitability of the location of medium and large facilities based on the following criteria:

• presence of adequate infrastructure and availability of low-cost energy (preferably renewable energy) or self-generation of energy, with priority given to idle sites or brownfield areas, areas to be regenerated, areas with low density of facilities, areas where system economies can be realized, ecosystem facilities (district heating, CER, ...), climatically more suitable areas;
• environmental risk;
• landscape quality of different areas;
• possible impacts on ecological networks and green networks for use;
• presence, nearby, of infrastructure, such as roads, tpl, waterworks, power lines, sewers, technological pipelines, etc;
• presence of other data centers or to the presence of other activities that could benefit from the aforementioned settlement, also for the purpose of safeguarding employment and productive fabric.

What environmental permits are required?

• Where the nominal thermal power of the emergency power units is greater than 50 MW, one falls into an activity subject to AIA, such that it is necessary for the proponent to acquire in advance the measure of exclusion from EIA or, in the case of a total power exceeding 150 MW, the measure of environmental compatibility, in priority to the issuance of the AIA and any other authorization.
• For medium and large Data Centers, it is necessary to verify, based on the municipal planning, whether the intervention falls within the scope of SEA.

What is the impact on the permitting process?

Applications for medium- and large-scale facilities must be evaluated at a service conference where the Province or Metropolitan City territorially concerned will give an opinion on the compatibility of the intervention based on the provisions of these guidelines.

• MTTS 1 for sustainability, environmental emergencies and land regeneration;
• MTTS 2 for social cohesion, supra-municipal and metropolitan services;
• MTTS 3 for innovation in the spaces of production, services and distribution.

In accordance with the provisions of the MTP, Municipalities will have to take up and develop, adapting them to local scale, the contents of the MTTS in their respective planning tools.The content of this document is for information purposes only and is not and cannot be intended as legal advice on the topics dealt with. For further information please contact Rosemarie Serrato and Sara Petricciuolo.

1. How new technologies are changing the real estate market

We have become accustomed to considering digital technology crucial in all sectors: it increases the potential, simplifies transactions and supports new business models. Even in the real estate context we have been for decades experimenting with new forms of use such as online accommodation booking systems and virtual property tours. Such scenarios are increasingly developing thanks to applications that allow users, at any time and from any place, to find apartments chosen through a wide range of features and useful information, and even, through specific apps, to conduct visits no longer only online but also in presence and without the need to be accompanied by the usual agent, allowing considerable flexibility and cost savings. But there is more.It is also possible to sign leases that are automatically generated by the system as soon as the prospective tenant agrees to the general terms and conditions, enters all the necessary data, specifies his or her preferences for any extra services (such as cleaning or laundry services) and pays the amount required  as a deposit via digital payments. 

2. New virtual worlds: the metaverse

The technological impact has further increased with the arrival of new technologies that have enabled the creation of a new real estate market: virtual real estate and real estate metaverse.According to the definition given by legal commentators, the metaverse is a “collective virtual shared space, created by the convergence of virtually enhanced physical reality and physically persistent virtual space, including the sum of all virtual worlds, augmented reality, and the Internet”[1].This is not a new reality: open world games have been existing for decades, allowing players to move freely within virtual worlds.In recent years, however, the metaverse has been revolutionised by the integration of platforms with blockchain[2], the generation and exchange among users of NFTs (Non Fungible Tokens)[3] and, increasingly, by the the use of 3D viewers.And the virtual real estate market seems to be the sector that has benefited most from this revolution; at the moment the most relevant real estate metaverses are the so-called “Big Four”: The Sandbox, Decentraland, Cryptovoxels and Somnium Space.Sandbox is a community-driven metaverse: each virtual item is an NFT that can be created, purchased and traded by users via the cryptocurrency called “sand”. Players can purchase plots of land (“lands”) on which facilities can be built and desired virtual experiences can be created[4], envisaging also the payment of entrance fees. Everyrealm (formerly Republic Realm, a leading investment company in the virtual real estate market) said it currently has investments in 27 metaverse platforms, including The Sandbox, where it has developed 100 islands with villas (Fantasy Islands) and a marketplace for boats and jet skis.Decentraland is a completely decentralised world: ownership of assets is managed by smart contracts that are governed by the DOA (Decentralised Autonomous Organisation), a decentralised autonomous organisation without a governing body but managed directly by the holders of specific tokens (MANA) issued by Decentraland in a limited quantity. The purchase of assets is done through said tokens and can also involve multiple lots that can then be combined into a single token (the Estate Token)[5].It is perhaps superfluous to point out that the possibilities offered by this kind of virtual environment have attracted strong interest especially because of the potential from an advertising standpoint: Decentraland is not simply a virtual real estate platform but rather a place to invest by purchasing LAND to provide virtual experiences that can then lead to greater real revenues.Spatial, unlike the other metaverses, allows the purchase of virtual spaces that can also be modified, resold or rented at a later stage, just as in the normal dynamics of the real estate market[6]. Due to said characteristics, investing in the metaverse of Spatial is much closer to traditional real estate experiences: leveraging spaces (albeit virtual) that have value in relation to the utility they fulfill in certain locations (such as conference rooms, art galleries, concert halls). By contrast, in other metaverses, property value tends to be more subject to fluctuations, even speculative ones[7]. 

3. The nature of virtual spaces: is “land” real estate or an NFT?

The purchase of an asset in the metaverse is not comparable to the purchase of property in the real world both substantially in terms of acquired right or in terms of the procedure required for its transfer. Land is an intangible asset represented by an NFT[8]. NFTs certify the authenticity and uniqueness as well as the full ownership of an asset. Of course, the rules traditionally applicable to real estate, in particular the special rules of real estate leases, are made inapplicable by the digital nature of the asset. The building constructed on virtual land is simply a 3-D work created with software, whose digital ownership is certified. Therefore, it is clear that the contracts that currently characterize the real estate landscape cannot be applied in the metaverse; on the other hand, however, atypical agreements could be signed that, at least in certain respects, may borrow certain “typical” aspects of virtual real estate contracts.In the Italian legal system, land may be qualified as (intangible?) property under Article 810 of the Italian Civil Code. The related NFTs could represent the respective digital assets, echoing the case of those legitimation documents under Article 2002 of the Italian Civil Code aimed at identifying the subjects entitled to a particular service (such as tickets for a show)[9].The transfer of NFTs involving land is done through smart contracts [10]. The latter have the advantage of being unchangeable and ending automatically: upon the occurrence of a certain event (trigger event), the contract will be implemented with the transfer of the monies specified in the code of the smart contract in question[11]. 

4. Virtual real estate: issues and possibilities

The value of a real property depends on various parameters, including its size, location, surrounding context and the relationship between supply and demand. In the metaverse, some of these criteria may acquire a different relevance or be questioned, while others still retain their value. For example, the location of a property may have great significance also in the metaverse, as the creation of neighbourhoods inhabited by certain users may lead to a greater flow of players in such areas[12].On the other hand, the metaverse has no boundaries and therefore there is no certainty that the number of lands currently existing on each platform will remain the same over time. Consequently, the value of each land might change over time due to a potentially infinite expansion.In other words, the metaverse allows users to enjoy new spaces where to carry out intangible business activities, such as the sale of digital goods[13], but it also offers multiple possibilities for real business: for instance, one will be able to buy physical goods after having viewed them online, or take virtual tours before booking a stay at a holiday resort[14] or entering into lease agreements.Of all the asset classes, retail seems to be the one that can best exploit the possibilities of the multiverse. In the field of fashion, for example, where the relationship with the brand is vital, virtual worlds can be used simply to advertise one's own brand, but also to strengthen the relationship with one’s customers by selling them designer skins (the outfits of one's avatars), or to give them the possibility of buying specific garments after having tried them on online through “virtual try-on” experiences[15]. Even large retailers apparently do not want to miss the opportunity to use the metaverse to advertise their products: Carrefour, for instance, bought a 36-hectare plot of land on The Sandbox to organise events or product launches.In light of all the foregoing, it is not surprising that real estate sales on the four major platforms of the metaverse reached $501 million in 2021 and exceeded $85 million in January 2022 alone[16]. 

5. NFTs, smart contracts and blockchain in the “real” real estate market

As we have seen above, NFTs represent a fundamental element of virtual worlds. However, in theory, they could also be used to replace real property title deeds, deeds granting the use of properties and accounting documents such as invoices. In addition, the signing of smart contracts could obviate the need (or perhaps the opportunity: editor's note) for declarations of Third Trusted Parties (notaries and real estate registers)[17] valid as certification erga omnes, as well as other intermediaries, such as banks for the provision of financing and real estate agents for the matching of supply and demand.Of course, said considerations are still abstract for the time being, given the current statuory obligations regarding, for example, the continuity of registrations pursuant to Article 2650 of the Italian Civil Code and the central role of notaries. Moreover, looking at our legal system, it is difficult to imagine title deeds in the form of NFT, given that pursuant to Articles 1350, 2643 and 2657 of the Italian Civil Code, the transfer of properties requires specific written forms (public deed or notarised private deed) and the registration of the relevant deed with the land registers.Finally, smart contracts cannot be amended after they have been entered into because each transaction is recorded as an immutable block of data that can only be followed by a further block of data (such as a new and subsequent smart contract), which strengthen the entire blockchain[18]. Hence, the signing of smart contracts could be useful merely for single and instantaneous transfers (typically the purchase and sale of a property without a preliminary agreement), but could hardly fit into the contractual structures envisaged in the current real estate scenario. Think, for instance, of the case in which there is a need to provide for a significant interim period between signing and closing, which may also contain conditions precedent/subsequent[19].A further area that deserves consideration is that of works contracts between private parties. Indeed, the blockchain system would make it possible to bring together in a single place, immutable and accessible to all parties, all information concerning the property undergoing works. Moreover, it would allow transactions to be carried out in a transparent manner at certain milestones in the relevant timetable and agreements to be entered into in an automated manner via smart contracts[20]. The content of this article is for information purposes only and is not, and cannot be intended as, professional advice on the matters dealt with. For further information, please contact Luigi Croce.  [1] Annunziata F., Conso A., NFT - L’arte e il suo doppio. Non Fungible Token: l’importanza delle regole, oltre i confini dell’arte, Montabone, 2021, page 39.[2] Pursuant to Article 8b ter, paragraph 1 of Decree Law 135/2018 (Simplification Decree 2019) converted into Law 12/2019: “«Distributed ledger-based technologies» means IT technologies and protocols that use a shared, distributed, replicable, simultaneously accessible, architecturally decentralised ledger on a cryptographic basis, such as to enable the recording, validation, updating and storage of both unencrypted and further cryptographically protected data verifiable by each participant, not alterable and not modifiable.”[3] For further discussion on this point, see paragraph 2 below.[4] In early February 2022, video game developer and publisher Ubisoft announced that one of its core games-Raving Rabbids-will come to life in The Sandbox. Gucci decided to land on The Sandbox with its own experimental concept store, Vault, which was initially created as a platform for selling a curated selection of rare vintage items and limited edition models.[5] Che cos’è Decentraland (MANA)?, in academy.binance.com, 18 November 2021.[6] Description of Spatial in the exhibition “DART 2121. 2^nd edition. NFT art of the future” presso il DART (Dynamic Art Museum) in Milan, 30 March-24 May 2022.[7] Scully B., NFT Real Estate: Why Buying Land In The Metaverse Is Not It, in spatial.io, 9 February 2022.[8] These are cryptographic tokens, created on blockchain, which therefore contain unique, non-alterable and non-interchangeable information capable of “univocally certifying, a digital object and/or a right inherent in a physical asset and of which they can, in any event, guarantee the title and, typically, the right of ownership” (Annunziata F., Conso A., NFT - L’arte e il suo doppio. Non Fungible Token: l’importanza delle regole, oltre i confini dell’arte, Montabone, 2021, pages 15-16).[9] In the Italian legal system, such case is distinguished from the case of negotiable instruments within the meaning of Article 1992 et seq. of the Civil Code. Specifically then, tokens are not embedded in a res, but require a res (e.g., computer) to be used. Therefore, the incorporation is not physical but at most digital (Cfr. Rulli E., Incorporazione senza res e dematerializzazione senza accentratore: appunti sui token, in Orizzonti del Diritto Commerciale, issue 1, 2019).[10] Pursuant to Article 8b ter, paragraph 2 of  Decree Law 135/2018 (Simplification Decree 2019), converted into Law 12/2019, “A «smart contract» means a computer program that works in accordance with distributed ledger technologies and whose execution automatically binds two or more parties on the basis of effects predefined by them. Smart contracts meet the requirement of written form subject to computer identification of the parties involved through a process having the requirements set by the Agency for Digital Italy with guidelines to be adopted within ninety days of the date of entry into force of the law converting this decree.”[11] Janssen A. U., Patti F. P., Demistificare gli smart contracts, in Osservatorio del diritto civile e commerciale, issue 1, January 2020, page 35.[12] For example, singer Snoop Dog is creating a micro-world called “Snoopverse” on The Sandbox and footballer Marco Verratti purchased 25 islands on The Sandbox.[13] On Horizon Worlds, a Meta video game accessible with Oculus visors, it will be possible to monetise virtual objects created by the users themselves (e.g. clothes for avatars) or allow access to a portion of the world created directly by users (Testing New Tools for Horizons Worlds Creators To Earn Money, in oculus.com, 11 April 2022).[14] The R Collection Hotels group with the start-up Takyon created a decentralised booking platform combining NFT and blockchain and sold the first NFT including a stay at the Grand Hotel Victoria in Menaggio (Como) (R Collection Hotel entra nel mondo del Metaverso. Il futuro è già qui, in excellencemagazine.luxury.co.uk, 28 February 2022). Moreover, Qatar Airways launched QVerse, a virtual experience that allows users of the www.qatarairways.com/QVerse website to virtually navigate certain areas of Hamad International Airport and the inside of the cabins of the company’s aircraft.[15] i.e the possibility to try on cosmetics and garments online via augmented reality (AR). Such practice may potentially increase receipts and reduce the number of returns.[16] Simonetta B., Metaverso, vendite immobiliari da mezzo miliardo. Entro fine 2022 raddoppieranno, in ilsole24ore.com, 1 February 2022. Sales exponentially increased after 28 October 2021, when the company of the social network Facebook and apps such as Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger as well as of the virtual reality viewer Oculus Rift changed its name to Meta Platforms Inc. stating that “The metaverse is the next evolution of social connection. Our company’s vision is to help bring the metaverse to life, so we are changing our name to reflect our commitment to this future”. See Mark Zuckerberg, Founder’s Letter, 2021, in about.fb.com, 28 October 2021.[17] Di Maio D., Rinaldi G., Blockchain e la rivoluzione legale degli Smart Contracts, in dirittobancario.it, 11 July 2016.[18] Cos’è la tecnologia blockchain?, in ibm.com.[19] Di Maio D., Rinaldi G., Blockchain e la rivoluzione legale degli Smart Contracts, in dirittobancario.it, 11 July 2016.[20] Blockchain in Real Estate, in consensys.net.

What is requisition?

What properties can be requisitioned for use by Prefects?

What allowances are provided for requisition for use?

What is the timeframe for the payment of the above-mentioned allowances?

• if the order for requisition for use does not set out a shorter period for return[3], the allowance paid to the owner is provisionally awarded having regard to the number of months or fraction of months elapsing between the date of the order and the end of the emergency (including any extension)[4];
• in case of extension of the requisition, the difference between the allowance already paid and that due for the further period shall be paid to the owner within 30 days of the expiry of the term originally set out.

What judicial protection is available against the Prefect's orders?

Are there any other terms to arrange requisition?

• the suspension of the time limits for the conclusion of administrative proceedings, providing that “for the purposes of calculating directory, mandatory, preparatory, intraprocedural, final and executive time limits relating to the conduct of administrative proceedings, upon the request of a party or ex officio, pending as of the date of 23 February 2020 or commenced thereafter, the period between said date and 15 April 2020 shall not be taken into account”.
• the extension or deferral, for the corresponding time, of the time limits for formation of the final will of the Administration in the forms of significant silence.

Furthermore, “all certificates, statements, permits, concessions, authorizations and licences, howsoever named, expiring in the period between 31 January 2020 and 15 April 2020 shall remain valid and effective until 15 June 2020”, thus providing for an extension ex lege of their validity.What are the concrete consequences of the above provision? In particular, what are the consequences in the real estate sector?The above regulation has for example an impact on the statutory time limits for

• confirmation of the validity of the certified work commencement notice ( “SCIA”);
• the validity of building permits;
• the exercise of the right of preemption of the Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism;
• the approval of implementation plans or any variant thereof, etc.

Some concrete scenarios:

• • SCIA filed on 10 February 2020 concerning the execution of a building project.Pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 3, of Law 241/1990, within 30 days of the receipt of the SCIA, the Administration may adopt “reasoned measures prohibiting the continuation of the activity and removing any harmful effects thereof”.Pursuant to Article 103 of the Heal Italy Decree, such term - originally expiring on 11 March 2020 - will expire on 3 May 2020.
  • Purchase and sale of a listed property of cultural interest under Legislative Decree 42/2004.The right of pre-emption may be exercised by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism within 60 days from receipt of the notice of transfer, or within 180 days from receipt of late notice.Well, assuming that the notice of transfer was given on 10 February 2020, the final deadline within which the Ministry may exercise the right of pre-emption – originally 10 April 2020 - will be 2 June 2020.
  • A building permit in which the time limit for end of work set at 1 February 2020: such time limit is extended to 15 June 2020.It should however be recalled that Article 15 of Presidential Decree 380/2001 provides for the possibility of granting an extension of the deadline for commencement or completion of work set out in the building permit, by a reasoned order, if a supervening event occurs beyond the permit holder’s control.
  • A procedure for approval of an implementation plan, or a variant thereof, pursuant to Lombardy Regional Law No. 12/2005, for which the deadline for the filing of observations by interested third parties was 31 January 2020: the 60-day term within which the Public Administration must definitively approve the implementation plan - originally expiring on 31 March 2020 - will expire on 23 May 2020.

The provision specifies, however, that “public authorities shall take all appropriate organisational measures to ensure a reasonable duration and prompt conclusion of the proceedings, with priority being given to those to be considered urgent, including on the basis of reasoned requests from the parties concerned”.  This article is for information purposes only and is not, and cannot be intended as, a professional opinion on the topics dealt with. It is also understood that the content of this document is not based on the ascertainment of the existence of the factual and legal conditions relating to the validity and effectiveness of building permits or town planning procedures. For further information, please contact your reference counsel or send an email to the following addresses: Real Estate Department: Luigi Croce, Christian Mocellin, Rosemarie Serrato. Administrative Department: Giuliano Berruti, Marco Monaco, Francesca Bonino.