Italy: Constitutional Court Upholds Ban on Ground-Mounted Solar Farms on Agricultural Land: What Changes

The ban on installing ground-mounted photovoltaic systems in agricultural zones is constitutionally legitimate. This was established by the Constitutional Court in ruling number 184, filed on November 5, 2026, which again addressed the restrictions introduced by national regulations for the construction of solar power plants on land classified as agricultural by urban planning instruments. The decision confirms the legislator’s ability to limit the installation of photovoltaic panels directly on agricultural soil, within the framework of balancing renewable energy production, environmental protection, and the safeguarding of agricultural activities. However, the ban does not uniformly apply to all solar technologies: agrivoltaic systems with elevated modules, which allow for the continuation of cultivation and agro-pastoral activities, remain permitted, along with specific exceptions identified by the law.

Ground-mounted photovoltaic systems in agricultural areas: what the Constitutional Court decided

With judgment number 184, the Constitutional Court declared some of the numerous constitutional legitimacy issues raised by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, Third Section, through five distinct referral acts, partially inadmissible and partially unfounded. These acts were characterized by partially overlapping content. At the center of the judgment were Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Decree-Law No. 63 of May 15, 2024, as amended by the conversion law; Article 20, paragraph 1-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 199 of November 8, 2021; and Article 2, paragraph 2, first sentence, of Legislative Decree No. 190 of November 25, 2024. The administrative judge had raised doubts regarding the constitutionality of these provisions with reference to Articles 3, 9, 11, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, also invoking principles of European Union legislation on the promotion of renewable energy sources and energy and climate governance. In particular, the issues referred to Directive 2018/2001/EU and Regulation 2018/1999/EU, as amended by Directive 2023/2413/EU and Regulation 2021/1119/EU, respectively. The Court initially delimited the scope of the judgment based on the

elements actually contained in the TAR records, and then to examine the objections in light of the previous ruling No. 127 of 2026, which was published after the questions were raised.

The ban does not apply to all solar installations: the distinction between photovoltaic and agrivoltaic systems

A central aspect of the ruling concerns the actual scope of the ban established by national legislation. The Constitutional Court clarified that the regulation does not generally prohibit solar energy production in agricultural areas, but rather limits a specific installation method. The ban specifically applies to photovoltaic systems with modules placed directly on the ground, while agrivoltaic installations “with modules not placed on the ground” remain permitted, provided they are designed to ensure the continuity of agricultural and agro-pastoral activities on the affected land. This distinction is decisive in assessing the constitutional legitimacy of the contested provisions. The objective of the regulation is to enable the development of solar energy production through solutions compatible with preserving the agricultural function of the territory. The Court also noted that Article 20 of Legislative Decree No. 199 of 2021 contains specific exceptions and derogations, through which the legislature allows the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic systems in certain types of areas expressly identified

The regulatory framework, therefore, does not introduce an absolute exclusion of any photovoltaic system on agricultural land, but establishes differentiated limitations based on the characteristics of the installations and the conditions set by law.

Renewable energy and European targets: why the restrictions were deemed legitimate

Another aspect examined by the Court concerns the relationship between the ban on ground-mounted photovoltaic systems and European commitments to increase the production of energy from renewable sources. The issues raised by the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio referred to European provisions governing the energy transition and the pursuit of climate objectives. However, the Constitutional Court did not find sufficient grounds to deem the national regulation constitutionally illegitimate. In line with what was already stated in Judgment No. 127 of 2026, the constitutional judges highlighted that it has not been demonstrated that the introduced limitations compromise the achievement of European objectives in the field of renewable energies. According to the Court, the regulation of the installation of such systems is the result of complex legislative choices, through which the legislator exercised its discretion in balancing different needs. A balance that was not considered to be affected by manifest unreasonableness. The Constitutional Court also did not accept the request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union,

The request was made solely in the briefs of one of the parties to the main proceedings. The application, filed under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, sought a ruling on the alleged conflict between Article 5 of Decree-Law No. 63 of 2024 and European Union regulations concerning the “strategy” for adaptation to climate change.

Environmental protection and agriculture: balancing constitutional interests

The Constitutional Court also dismissed the challenges to Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution, which concerned the balancing of interests involved in the regulation of photovoltaic installations in agricultural areas. The legislation was deemed an expression of a legislative choice that is not manifestly unreasonable, aimed at making compatible the protection of agricultural activities and the production of solar energy, without sacrificing assets of primary constitutional importance directly or indirectly linked to environmental protection. The ruling also addresses the issue of the higher costs of agrivoltaic systems compared to traditional photovoltaic installations with panels placed on the ground. The Court acknowledges that the implementation of agrivoltaic systems with modules adequately elevated from the ground may entail greater economic burden. This is an element that the legislator may consider for other purposes, but it is not sufficient to alter the constitutional balance underlying the restrictions. The additional expenditure required to adopt technologies that allow the continuation of agricultural activities

Agricultural, therefore, does not in itself determine the illegitimacy of the contested provisions, in light of the importance attributed to the environmental and agricultural interests involved.

Agricultural land: What matters is the urban planning classification, not the actual use

The Court’s clarification on the criterion used to identify areas subject to the restrictions is also particularly significant. The regulation refers to land classified as agricultural by urban planning instruments, regardless of how it is actually used. The Constitutional Court ruled that this approach is not constitutionally illegitimate, emphasizing the need to adopt objective and stable legal criteria to determine the application of the provisions. According to the judges, the requirements of legal certainty preclude basing this type of regulation solely on mutable factual circumstances, such as the actual agricultural use of a plot of land or its temporary state of degradation. Consequently, for the purposes of applying the ban, it is not determinative whether a plot of land is actually cultivated or used for agricultural activities. The decisive factor is its urban planning classification and the resulting abstract possibility of using it for such purposes. This distinction is particularly important for uncultivated or temporarily degraded agricultural areas, which cannot be

re considered outside the scope of the regulations solely on the basis of their actual conditions. With Judgment No. 184 of 2026, the Constitutional Court thus confirms the approach already expressed in the previous ruling No. 127 of the same year, recognizing the constitutional legitimacy of a regulation that limits the installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic systems in agricultural zones, while maintaining the possibility of implementing agrivoltaic systems compatible with the continuation of agricultural activities and the additional installations permitted by legislative exceptions.