By judgment No. 650 of 25 March 2026, the Regional Administrative Court of Veneto annulled the measure whereby a Municipality had prohibited the continuation of activities carried out under a Simplified Authorisation Procedure (PAS).
The ruling was issued in proceedings brought by a leading operator in the renewable energy sector, which was developing an agrivoltaic plant covering approximately 13.6 hectares of agricultural land.
In summary, the authority’s refusal was based on:
- the alleged unsuitability of the preliminary sale agreement to demonstrate the availability of the land;
- the applicability of Regional Law of Veneto No. 17/2022 on “non-suitability indicators”, allegedly applicable by way of derogation from the national legislation on suitable areas (Legislative Decree No. 199/2021).
In upholding the application, the Court established the following key principles:
- (i) as a preliminary matter, the Court dismissed the objection of inadmissibility raised by the defendant local authority, which argued that the preliminary sale and purchase agreements had lapsed due to the failure to execute the final agreements within the agreed 18-month period. The Court, applying the interpretative criteria set out in Articles 1362 and 1363 of the Italian Civil Code, found that the contractual clauses granted the prospective purchaser the right to request an extension – already consented to in advance by the prospective seller – and that the parties’ intention to maintain the contractual relationship intact was further confirmed by the subsequent execution of a specific addendum setting a new deadline for the conclusion of the final agreements.
In the context of these arguments, the Regional Administrative Court admitted the filing of the addendum beyond the time limits set out in Article 73 of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure, in that (i) it came into existence after the relevant deadline; (ii) it became necessary in order to respond to an argument raised for the first time in the statement of defence filed by the Municipality on 26 January 2026, and (iii) it served to demonstrate the continued interest in pursuing the application. - (ii) with regard to the availability of the land for PAS purposes, the preliminary sale and purchase agreement is sufficient to demonstrate the “availability of the areas concerned by the plant and related works” required by Article 6(2) of Legislative Decree No 28/2011, provided that it grants the prospective purchaser adequate rights of enjoyment to carry out the necessary steps for obtaining the authorisation.
The Regional Administrative Court, in line with the recent case law of the Council of State (Fourth Division, 15 December 2025, No. 9891), clarified that the assessment must be conducted “not in the abstract, based on the legal form of the transaction used by the parties, but rather in concrete terms, in relation to the scope of the rights granted”. In the present case, it was demonstrated that the preliminary agreements granted the prospective purchaser free access to the sites for inspections, surveys and activities required for obtaining authorisations, while imposing restrictions on the prospective seller, thereby ensuring effective availability of the land to the prospective purchaser. - (iii) the areas classified as suitable under Article 20(8)(c-ter)(2) of Legislative Decree No. 199/2021 – in this case, agricultural land lacking particular environmental value located within 500 metres of an industrial facility – retain such classification even where regional legislation (in this case, Veneto Regional Law No. 17/2022) classifies them as “valuable agricultural areas” and therefore presumptively unsuitable. The Regional Administrative Court ruled that regional legislation cannot derogate from the fundamental principles of matters reserved to the State and that the criteria introduced by the regional law “apply exclusively to agricultural areas other than those designated by national law as ‘suitable ex lege’”. Accordingly, the construction of the plant is not conditional upon the applicant meeting the requirements set out in Article 4(3) of Regional Law No. 17/2022;
- (iv) the mere proximity of a property subject to protection under Legislative Decree No. 42/2004 (in this case, a Venetian villa) does not preclude the area from being classified as suitable under Article 20(8)(c-ter)(2) of Legislative Decree No. 199/2021.
The Regional Administrative Court, in line with the recent case law of the Council of State (Fourth Division, Nos. 10383/2025 and 1099/2026), clarified that point (c-quater) of the same paragraph 8 is of a residual and general nature, whilst point (c-ter) is of a special nature: the safeguard clause “without prejudice to the provisions of points (a), (b), (c), (c-bis) and (c-ter)” contained in point (c-quater) prevents the latter from introducing an additional suitability requirement beyond those already governed by the preceding specific provisions.
The Court further noted that the Municipality’s objection regarding the proximity of the Venetian villa constituted an inadmissible ex post supplementation to the grounds of the decision, since that circumstance was not included among the legal grounds on which the refusal was based, but had been mentioned only “for the sake of completeness” in the preliminary investigation section of the contested measure.
This ruling is of considerable significance for operators in the sector, as it confirms – on the merits – fundamental principles regarding (i) the suitability of preliminary agreements as evidence of land availability, (ii) the primacy of the national classification of suitable areas over more restrictive regional provisions, and (iii) the relationship between the various categories of suitability provided for in Article 20(8) of Legislative Decree No 199/2021, with particular regard to the specific nature of point (c-ter) as compared to point (c-quater).
Furthermore, from a procedural standpoint, the judgment confirms the applicant’s right to file documents beyond the time limits set out in Article 73 of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure, provided that such documents came into existence
after the relevant deadline and are capable of demonstrating the continued admissibility of the application.
