Communication JOL ITA 2/2025 of February 2025

On August 12, 2025, the Italian government presented its response to the Urgent Communication JOL ITA 2/2025, February 27, 2025, submitted to it by the Special Rapporteur (SR) of the Human Rights Council on the right to housing together with the SRs on human rights and extreme poverty, on the rights of persons with disabilities, on the independence of judges and lawyers, and the independent expert on the rights of older persons. The Communication concerned some cases of evictions of vulnerable people brought to the attention of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CtESCR) through individual communications between 2022 and 2023, some of which were carried out by the Italian authorities despite requests for suspension and urgent measures in support of the evicted persons made by the CtESCR under Article 5 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OP-ICESCR). The SR Communication particularly stigmatised the fact that the Italian government, though a note from the State Attorney's Office, had invited the country's judicial authorities who might have to assess similar requests for interim measures advanced by the CtESCR not to comply with them, given their alleged non-legally binding character (on this and other similar Communications see this 2025 Yearbook here).

Measures adopted by Italy to support the right to adequate housing

The Italian government's response begins by recalling the State's commitment to addressing housing hardship and the related issue of evictions. In this context, it cites the approval, with the 2025 budget law, of the so-called "Casa Italia Plan", a medium-to-long-term programmatic instrument to be implemented by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport with the participation of regions and local authorities. The 2025 budget law also refinanced the fund for non-culpable defaulting tenants (Fondo inquilini morosi incolpevoli) with 30 million euros. The response also cites Decree-Law 69/2024, which simplifies construction and urban planning procedures, indirectly allowing broader access to housing. Other legislative reforms (of the public procurement code and the consolidated text on construction) aimed at reviving both public and private residential construction are also mentioned, as well as projects and initiatives promoted at the regional level. Finally, the response mentions the social housing initiatives envisaged in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (to be completed by 2026) and the funding of the Innovative National Program for Quality Housing, also managed by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (the latter, according to the response, would have mobilised 11 billion euros over the last ten years).

Communication 2/2025 took stock of seven individual communications submitted to the CESCR in which requests for interim measures made by the international body (essentially, the suspension of the execution of the eviction until the CtESCR's pronouncement or the provision of adequate alternative housing solutions to the evicted persons to protect their fundamental rights) had been expressly rejected or not taken into consideration by the enforcement judge. The cases involved older people or caregivers of severely ill or disabled family members; in four cases, they involved immigrant families. The events summarised in the Communication referred to situations of extreme economic and social precariousness and also raised possible issues of discrimination based on ethnic or national origin. For example, one of the cases cited was the communication Saydawi and Farah v. Italy (in 2024, the CtESCR issued a view on the merits recognising the violation by Italy of Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - ICESCR - see a summary in the 2024 Yearbook here). The request for interim measures had first been approved and then rejected by the Italian judges. In the Communication 2/2025, the SRs observe that, according to updated information dated early in 2025, one of the families that had filed the petition, of Moroccan origin, continues to face difficulties in finding accommodation in Rome and its surroundings, not only due to the state of economic precariousness in which it lives but presumably also because of ethnic-religious biases.

The Letizi case and the controversy over the binding nature of the CESCR's interim measures

The Italian response issued in August 2025 does not go into the merits of all the cases cited, but instead dwells on the central issue raised by the Special Rapporteurs, namely document CT 16061/2022 in which, about Communication 256/2022 to the CtESCR (Rossana Letizi v. Italy), the State Attorney's Office affirmed the non-binding character of requests for interim measures under Article 5 of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR (OP-ICESCR). This note from the government was used in court as an argument in favour of rejecting requests for interim measures from the CtESCR in other cases as well. The SRs suggest an undue interference by the executive in proceedings that should be autonomously decided by judges based on applicable national and international norms.

The government's reply first points out that the Italian legal system provides many support mechanisms for tenants who, through no fault of their own, are unable to pay rent. The Law on rents (Law 392/1978) allows a 90-day deferral of payment; an 18-month suspension is provided by Law 9/2007 for tenants over 65 years of age (Ms. Letizi was born in 1935), terminally ill patients or persons with disabilities over 66 per cent, in case they do not have alternative housing. The legislation concerning people affected by the 2016 earthquake, the National Fund for Supporting Access to Rental Housing, introduced by Law 431/1998 and managed at the regional level, as well as the eviction freeze between 2020 and the end of 2021, motivated by the COVID-19 emergency, are also mentioned. Finally, the response points out that municipalities (in this specific case, the city of Rome) have additional mediation and welfare tools at their disposal and can also rely on the contribution of private entities and volunteers. In fact, Ms. Letizi had been offered various alternative housing options to the apartment from which she had to be evicted and in which she had lived since 1995, also in collaboration with the Community of Sant'Egidio. All the offers had been rejected because they were considered incompatible with the lady’s stability and psychological well-being. Moreover, no accommodation was found to be viable between the applicant and the company that owned the apartment (to which the applicant attributed an undue increase in rent). The government also dwells on the introduction, by Law 48/2023, of the Inclusion Allowance, a measure to support people with particularly low incomes. As for the possibility for individuals in difficult financial conditions to access judicial protection tools in case of eviction (another issue raised by Communication 2/2025), the government replies by recalling that Presidential Decree 115/2002 provides for free legal aid for people with an annual income below 12,838 euros.

In conclusion, according to this response, the judicial procedure that led to the eviction order (which had not yet been carried out in 2025) against Ms. Letizi was fair, conducted with the participation of the tenant, and sought to provide alternative solutions to the person directly concerned. The other individual situations cited by the SRs are not explicitly examined.

On the specific point of the legal force of the interim measures requested by the CESCR, the Letizi case is particularly interesting, since on February 17, 2022, recalling the CtESCR's request, the Italian judge had suspended the execution of the eviction, but at the same time requested an opinion from the State Attorney's Office on whether the CtESCR's measure was binding or not. It was precisely by referring to this opinion of the State Attorney's Office that the judge subsequently proceeded to resume the eviction procedure, assuming the non-binding character of the CESCR's measure.

Document CT 16061/2022, issued by the State Attorney's Office on May 25, 2022, expressing the position of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, states that the application by the Italian judge of the interim measures requested by the CESCR in the proceedings concerning Ms. Letizi would have been incompatible with national legislation. The response points out that concluding differently would violate the Italian constitutional norms on the rights of defence and due process (Articles 24 and 111 of the Constitution). In fact, the CtESCR's interim measure was issued in the context of a proceeding in which the counterparty to the applicant, i.e. the owner of the apartment, did not participate nor was consulted in any way, as the principle of adversarial proceedings would require. Lacking a national law to give effect to the CtESCR interim measures, the direct application by the Italian judge of the interim measures requested by the CESCR (i.e. the suspension of the execution of the eviction until the settlement of the dispute before the international body) would illegitimately compress the property right of the landlord (protected by Article 42 of the Constitution). It may also have adverse effects on the real estate market as a whole.

The response specifies that the document from the State Attorney's Office intervenes within the framework of a particular proceeding and that, in any case, the decision not to comply with the CtESCR's requests was made by the enforcement judge in total autonomy and in full respect of the rule of law principle. All the more so, by issuing such a note, the executive power has not interfered with the judiciary in the handling of any other similar cases.

The Italian government's response to the SRs’ Communication concludes by reaffirming Italy's commitment to the protection and promotion of all human rights and its intention to continue the dialogue with the United Nations human rights mechanisms.

Final Remarks

According to data from the CtESCR, there are currently (September 2025) 48 individual communications pending before the CtESCR concerning Italy, submitted between 2021 and 2025, mainly concerning cases of evictions ordered or carried out without providing the tenant and their family with an adequate alternative solution, i.e. one that respects the right to housing as defined by Article 11 of the ICESCR. Italy and Spain (the latter with as many as 138 pending communications) are the two countries from which the largest number of communications originate. It is clear, then, that the issue of evictions carried out without effective protection of the right to adequate housing (i.e. legally secure, economically accessible and suitable in terms of location and essential services) is a very pressing problem in the country. The right to adequate housing must also apply to the poorest people, as well as to children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and, in general, persons in a state of vulnerability and precariousness. Eviction procedures must provide for the meaningful participation of those concerned and should not be such as to increase the number of homeless people. The fact of not having sufficient money to pay the rent should not be a reason to deprive an individual of a vital right, such as that to adequate housing, and this entails a particular responsibility for states in countering the extreme financialization of the real estate market.

The Italian government's response does not seem to address these issues in a specific way. With reference to the Letizi case, it articulates a denial of the binding nature of the interim measures ordered by the CtESCR, centred on the autonomy of the judge in assessing the binding force of the acts of the CESCR and on the need to safeguard the adversarial principle. Still, it does not address the issue of the state's international responsibility for failing to protect the individuals who undergo evictions in cases where the effectively accessible social protection measures (including placements that break up the family unit) prove inadequate to guarantee the right to adequate housing. The response does, in fact, leave various other points uncovered on which Communication 2/2025 requested information and clarification, for example, measures to prevent evictions from resulting in loss of housing, measures to prevent homelessness, the annual number of evictions carried out, and measures taken to facilitate effective access to justice for people in extreme poverty to guarantee their right to housing.