Introduction

The FRANET multidisciplinary network, set up by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), periodically analyses the framework of fundamental rights in various EU countries and states seeking to join the EU. The 2025 report focused on the housing crisis and the situation of homeless people. The section on Italy highlights that the housing crisis in the country can no longer be considered a temporary or limited emergency, but rather a widespread structural phenomenon. This development is the result of a combination of economic, social and institutional factors that reinforce each other.

On the one hand, the soaring cost of housing and the exponential growth of short-term tourist rentals have drastically reduced the supply of housing on the residential market. Conversely, chronic and progressive underinvestment in public housing and inadequate historical economic support policies have made it almost impossible for the most vulnerable members of society to find decent and affordable housing. Consequently, an increasing number of families and individuals are at risk of social exclusion and housing poverty.

The FRANET survey illustrates how access to housing rights, fundamental to human dignity and the exercise of other civil and social rights, is hindered by bureaucratic barriers, structural deficiencies and a trend towards managing the problem on an emergency basis. In light of these challenges, this analysis aims to determine whether the recently introduced legislative and welfare responses are capable of addressing the root causes of the crisis, or if they merely mitigate its most visible and painful symptoms.

The figures behind the crisis

The most recent available data confirm that the housing crisis in Italy has reached worrying levels, emphasising the limitations of the current public response tools. According to data from the Ministry of the Interior reported in the FRA report, 40,158 eviction orders were issued in 2024, marking a 1.99% increase compared to the previous year. Almost half of these orders were issued in large metropolitan areas, where pressure from the housing market and steady rent increases make home ownership a privilege for the few.

Even more striking is the number of enforcement requests submitted to judicial officers, which reached 81,054, a year-on-year increase of 9.82%. Meanwhile, evictions carried out with the intervention of the public force totalled 21,337, essentially stable compared to 2023. Analysing the nature of the measures, it is clear that the main cause is tenant delinquency, recorded in 30,041 cases. Conversely, the number of procedures initiated due to the owner's need to regain the property (2,272) or due to the end of the lease (7,485) is lower. This data assumes particular significance when considered alongside the increasing popularity of short-term holiday lets, which remove properties from long-term residential use in favour of short-term rentals.

The situation of homelessness is also a key factor: the latest ISTAT survey lists 96,197 homeless people in Italy, over 65,000 of whom are men. This challenges old stereotypes: more than half are Italian nationals, and over 12,800 are children, showing that the crisis affects entire families.

Legislative response

The Italian regulatory framework for housing protection remains fragmented, lacking a comprehensive approach to address the structural crisis. Eviction management remains predominantly anchored in the procedures of the Code of Civil Procedure for finite leases or delinquency. Although minor corrective measures have been introduced over the years, such as grace periods to remedy delinquency or deferrals of enforcement for vulnerable parties, these protections remain limited and do not constitute a general system of social protection.

Indeed, the Italian legal system suffers from the absence of a dedicated framework law to protect vulnerable persons during property release proceedings. Past interventions, such as Law No. 9 of 2007, which suspended evictions for the elderly, disabled or terminally ill on low incomes, have expired. Even the recent civil process reform of 2022 failed to resolve these issues, as it merely involved the digitalisation and rationalisation of bureaucratic procedures without strengthening substantial guarantees for tenants at risk of homelessness.

In terms of investment and active policy, the 2026 Budget Law introduced some economic support measures. These include extending the Guarantee Fund for the purchase of a first home until 2027 (although this is reserved for priority categories such as young couples and single-parent families) and introducing tax breaks for workers who move residence for professional reasons. Another notable measure is the refinancing of the Blameless Default Fund, which aims to repay the tenant's debt before the bailiff intervenes and seeks to prevent eviction.

Towards administrative management

While efforts are being made to bolster financial support for vulnerable individuals, there is also a robust legislative push to accelerate the administrative recovery of properties and bolster the role of public safety authorities. The most obvious example of this shift is Law No. 80 of 2025 (“Security Decree”), which is part of the 2025 Security Package (see 2025 Yearbook). This law introduced Article 634-bis to the Criminal Code, which criminalises the arbitrary occupation of residential properties and carries severe penalties ranging from two to seven years' imprisonment.

The real novelty of the decree lies in the urgent eviction procedure, which enables the judicial police to evict the occupier immediately and return the property to the owner, with validation by the judicial authorities taking place at a later date. This legislation has raised significant concerns regarding fundamental rights. Both the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Court of Cassation and United Nations Special Rapporteurs have expressed concern about the lack of distinction between occupations carried out by organised crime and those driven by the need of families who have been made homeless.

This approach is accompanied by Bill No. 1610, which is currently (July 2026) under consideration by the Senate and proposes the establishment of the Eviction Enforcement Authority (AES) under the Ministry of Justice. This new administrative body would be responsible for managing eviction procedures in cases of documented delinquency, ensuring that owners receive a clearance order within a few days. However, this transfer of powers from the ordinary judge to an administrative authority risks reducing opportunities for social mediation and managing housing hardship as a mere public order problem.

Housing welfare

The Italian housing welfare system operates within the constraints of limited resources and administrative delays. It is divided into three main operational guidelines. The first of these is the new National Housing Plan, which has been allocated 660 million euros for the three-year period from 2025 to 2027. The plan aims to promote social housing programmes through public-private partnerships, support the purchase of first homes, and redevelop existing public housing. However, its implementation has been significantly delayed due to the failure to approve the associated decree.

The second guideline allocates funds from the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), which has earmarked €450 million for strengthening social housing and constructing 'post stations', which are designed to be temporary reception centres integrated with social and health services. The goal is to support at least 25,000 people experiencing severe poverty by 2026. This intervention is inspired by the Housing First philosophy, which considers access to a stable home to be the indispensable starting point, rather than the final step, in a therapeutic or reintegration process.

Finally, the third line of action relies on the Blameless Default Fund, which is funded with €10 million for 2025 and €20 million for 2026. This tool is essential in providing relief to families who are unable to pay rent due to unforeseen circumstances such as redundancy or serious health issues. Despite the importance of these measures, housing welfare still suffers from significant fragmentation and selectivity that excludes large segments of the population in need.

Best practices and new models

In the face of challenges to central institutions, interesting pilot projects based on collaboration between local administrations, foundations and third-sector associations are being developed in the area. These projects are attempting to develop new inclusion models. In the field of health protection and extreme marginalisation, the HOPE project (Health as an Opportunity to Promote Equity) is active in Rome. Born from a collaboration between the biopharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim and the Community of Sant'Egidio, this initiative is active at the San Gallicano outpatient clinic and aims to guarantee homeless people's right to health. The programme provides specialist screening and guidance within the NHS, seeking to break down the invisible barriers that often prevent people living on the streets from receiving adequate medical care. 

In terms of social innovation, the CASA project in Lombardy is notable, as it is a strategic partnership involving nine municipalities in the southeast of Milan, the Cariplo Foundation, and the Ambrosiano Welfare Foundation. The project's goal is to serve as a true metropolitan “Housing Hub”, acting as a neutral mediator between property owners and low-income tenants. By creating guarantee funds to cover fees and providing solidarity contributions and personalised administrative and social assistance, the hub manages to prevent eviction procedures from being initiated. These models demonstrate how combining skills and territorial resources can provide flexible, humane and effective solutions that anticipate the onset of the housing crisis rather than merely managing its dramatic consequences after eviction has occurred.

Conclusion

The right to adequate and decent housing is not merely a matter of material well-being, it is an indispensable prerequisite for the effective exercise of basic constitutional and human rights, including the rights to health, education, work and family life. While the Italian Constitution does not explicitly recognise a right to housing, the Constitutional Court has consistently affirmed its existence, grounded in the principles of social solidarity and substantive equality. This principle is also firmly anchored in the international treaties signed by our country.

In particular, Art. 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognises the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including the right to adequate housing. States Parties must take all necessary measures to ensure its progressive and concrete realisation. This means that states are required to do more than simply refrain from interfering with the right to housing, they must also adopt appropriate public policies and legislative measures to ensure its progressive effectiveness. While recognising that full implementation of the right can be achieved progressively, the Covenant requires states to deploy all available resources and rigorously justify any measures resulting in a retreat from the level of protection already achieved, paying particular attention to persons and groups in vulnerable conditions.

The FRANET report's analysis highlights a worrying discrepancy between these solemn declarations of principle and the reality of public policies implemented in 2025. While investment in social welfare and public housing struggles to produce tangible results, regulatory reforms tend to focus on speeding up release procedures and providing almost exclusive protection for private property. The real risk is that emergency management will ultimately take precedence over the protection of the most vulnerable. To overcome this structural crisis, it is urgent to strike a balance between the legitimate protection of property rights and the guarantee of the right to housing.