Subsidized housing and maximum transfer price: the decisive role of redemption in protecting the seller

Introduction: How to resolve litigation regarding the maximum selling price?

Those who have sold a social housing property (edilizia convenzionata) at market price risk, even years later, facing legal action for the restitution of substantial sums. This occurs due to the “maximum selling price constraint,” a value limit that, according to established legal orientation, follows the property through all its subsequent sales. However, a 2018 legislative intervention introduced a decisive tool for the defense of sellers: the “affrancazione” (price cap removal) procedure, which allows for the retroactive healing of the sale, neutralizing the refund request. A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal of Rome (No. 5460/2025), obtained by Attorney Isidoro Sperti, has definitively confirmed the effectiveness of this strategy.

The Case at the Center of the Appeal Ruling: A Sale and a Refund Request

The legal matter decided by the Court of Appeal of Rome originates from a 2015 sale and purchase agreement, in which our clients sold a property for 225,000 euros. The apartment, however, was subject to a social housing convention (ex Art. 35 Law 865/1971) that imposed a maximum selling price of 116,000.00 euros.

Based on a well-known ruling by the United Sections of the Supreme Court (No. 18135/2015), which established the permanent nature of this constraint for all subsequent ownership transfers, the buyers sued the sellers. The request was for the restitution of the difference between the price paid and the maximum permitted price, for a total difference of 109,000.00 euros. For our clients, who had acted in good faith, this presented a considerable financial risk.

The Winning Defense Strategy: The Decisive Use of Affrancazione

The cornerstone of the defense was first the exposition of the fairness of the price containment measures, followed by the strategic application of Law No. 136/2018—a regulatory intervention designed specifically to resolve this type of litigation. Indeed, the law strengthened the “affrancazione” procedure, a mechanism that allows for the definitive removal of the constraint on the maximum price by paying a fee to the Municipality.

The crucial innovation was extending the right to request “affrancazione” to “anyone who has an interest, even if they no longer hold proprietary rights to the real estate.” This allowed our clients, despite no longer being the owners, to initiate the procedure on April 1, 2019.

The “affrancazione” application has a dual legal effect: it renders the refund action “procedurally inadmissible” and extinguishes the claim.

The Decision of the Court of Appeal: The Defense’s Effectiveness Confirmed

The buyers appealed the first-instance decision, but the Court of Appeal of Rome rejected all their arguments.

The Court established three fundamental practical principles:

• Validity of evidence: The “affrancazione” application, being a “newly occurred document” (i.e., formed after the start of the lawsuit), can be legitimately presented in court even after the deadlines for filing evidence have expired.
• Effectiveness of the application even if incomplete: The administrative procedure is considered “pending” from the moment the application is submitted. Subsequent requests for integration by the Municipality do not suspend its effectiveness.
• Full constitutionality of the Law: The Court reiterated that the validity of Law No. 136/2018 has already been confirmed at the highest levels by the Constitutional Court (Ruling 210/2021) and the United Sections of the Supreme Court (Ruling 21348/2022), recognizing its “rebalancing purpose” to heal a serious social problem.

The Principle of Law Reiterated by the Supreme Court

A recent order from the Supreme Court (No. 26316/2025) has further clarified the regulatory framework. The Supreme Court strongly reiterated that the maximum selling price constraint is of a mandatory nature. This means the law prevails over the will of the parties. Consequently, a contractual clause providing for a price higher than the maximum is partially null. Such a clause does not invalidate the entire contract but is automatically replaced by law with the price imposed by the convention. It is precisely this nullity that grants the buyer the right to request the restitution of the sums paid in excess.

Final Analysis: A Solution Available, but Not Automatic

The two rulings complement each other perfectly: the Supreme Court confirms the premise of the problem (the price clause is null and the buyer has the right to seek restitution), while the Court of Appeal confirms the effectiveness of the solution (the seller can neutralize such a request with “affrancazione”).

So, how has the situation changed over time? The 2018 legislative intervention radically transformed the landscape. Previously, the seller was exposed to a legal action with an uncertain and potentially ruinous outcome. Today, a codified way out exists: the dispute moves from the court to a municipal office, and the risk of an unpredictable judgment is transformed into a calculable administrative cost.

Who is interested in this solution?

1. Those who sold at market price in the past: Anyone who sold a P.E.E.P. property without removing the constraint is a potential target for a restitution action, which is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations. For them, “affrancazione” is an essential defense tool to be activated as soon as a refund request is received.
2. Those currently involved in litigation: For those with an ongoing case, immediately initiating the “affrancazione” application is the decisive strategy to block the process and aim for its dismissal.
3. Those intending to sell today: Current owners of these properties should initiate “affrancazione” before putting the property on the market, in order to sell it at full price in total safety and transparency, without exposing themselves or future buyers to legal risks.

Is the issue therefore resolved for everyone? Absolutely not. The problem is surmountable, but not automatically surmounted. The buyer’s right to take legal action remains intact. The law has provided the seller with a “cure,” but it does not act on its own: it must be activated. Those who do not initiate the “affrancazione” procedure remain fully exposed to the risk of legal action and being ordered to return significant sums. The defensive strategy exists and is effective, but it requires timely and conscious action.

---

Attached: Ruling No. 5460/2025 of the Court of Appeal of Rome (anonymized version)