Squatters in Italy: Legal Remedies for Property Owners

Discovering that your property in Italy has been occupied by third parties without any legal title is a traumatic experience, all the more so for a foreign owner who is far away and often unfamiliar with the legal tools available. Italian law provides both civil and criminal remedies: the choice between them depends on the specific situation — the type of property, the manner of occupation, the pre-existing possessory situation, any prior contractual relationship, the nature of the occupant and the urgency of recovery.

The area underwent an important legislative development in 2025, with the introduction of Art. 634-bis of the Italian Criminal Code (arbitrary occupation of property intended as another person’s home) and the special repossession procedure under Art. 321-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which significantly strengthened criminal law protection for those whose home is occupied. These changes make it more important than ever to rely on a specialist lawyer to identify the right remedy for the specific case.

This guide explains the legal framework governing the illegal occupation of property in Italy, the actions available to protect possession and ownership, the applicable procedures, and the rules on compensation.

Illegal Occupation: Not a Single Legal Category

The term “illegal occupation” does not designate a single legal category to which the same remedy always applies. It is essential to distinguish at least the following situations, which differ in their legal elements, standing requirements and available remedies:

• occupation that was never backed by any title from the outset (arbitrary seizure of a property that was never lawfully handed over to the occupant);
• possession that began on the basis of a title that subsequently ceased, such as a lease, a loan for use (comodato), or a licence;
• violent or clandestine dispossession (spoglio), which triggers the possessory action under Art. 1168 of the Civil Code;
• a former tenant who refuses to vacate after the contractual relationship has ended;
• occupation of property intended as another person’s home through violence, threats, deceit or fraud, which constitutes the offence introduced by Art. 634-bis of the Criminal Code;
• arbitrary invasion of land or buildings under Art. 633 of the Criminal Code.

The choice of remedy depends not only on the manner of occupation and the urgency, but also on the specific possessory situation, the existence of any prior contract, the nature of the occupant, the intended use of the property and how the owner frames the claim. The Tribunal of Taranto, in judgment no. 1217 of 23 May 2025, emphasised the distinction between the real action of vindication under Art. 948 c.c. and the personal action for restitution: the former requires proof of ownership under the rules specific to vindication; the latter is based on the absence or termination of the title justifying possession and does not require the same standard of proof (Trib. Taranto no. 1217/2025).

Civil Remedies

The Possessory Action for Repossession (Art. 1168 Civil Code)

The azione di reintegrazione — also known as the action of spoglio — is the primary remedy for anyone who has suffered violent or clandestine dispossession. It is governed by Art. 1168 c.c. and protects the possessor who has been deprived of possession by violence or clandestinity, and also, under the conditions set out in the provision, the qualified holder (detentore qualificato).

Standing

Not every physical relationship with a property confers possessory standing. A distinction must be drawn between: the possessor; the qualified or autonomous holder, who holds in their own interest (such as a tenant or borrower under a comodato); and the holder for service or hospitality purposes, who is expressly excluded from possessory protection under Art. 1168 c.c. The Tribunal of Napoli Nord, in judgment no. 281 of 26 January 2026, confirmed that in possessory proceedings a title of ownership can serve only to clarify the factual situation, but does not replace proof of the actual exercise of power over the property at the time of the dispossession (Trib. Napoli Nord no. 281/2026). The Tribunal of Gela, in judgment no. 387 of 9 April 2026, denied possessory standing to a claimant who had not demonstrated that they still had effective possession of the property (Trib. Gela no. 387/2026).

Violence and clandestinity

It is not correct to say that every entry during the owner’s absence automatically constitutes clandestine dispossession. Clandestinity must be assessed on the specific facts: it concerns the impossibility for the possessor to have known about the dispossession at the moment it was carried out, judged against the standard of ordinary diligence. The Tribunal of Rome, in judgment no. 5070 of 2 April 2026, excluded clandestinity where the person responsible for supervising the property should have noticed the works and the change in the physical situation promptly (Trib. Roma no. 5070/2026). The correct formulation is therefore: entry during the possessor’s absence may constitute clandestine dispossession when, assessed on the specific circumstances, the possessor could not have known about the act of dispossession at the time of its execution using ordinary diligence.

The one-year time limit and its running

The action must be brought within one year of the dispossession (Art. 1168, para. 2, c.c.). In the case of clandestine dispossession, the time limit runs from the date of discovery, taking into account also the moment at which the possessor could have become aware of it using ordinary diligence: a subjectively late discovery by the owner is not therefore always sufficient to extend the period. Where the conduct consists of a series of acts, the time limit may run from the last act only if the subsequent acts are autonomous and each individually capable of constituting dispossession; it runs from the first act if the subsequent ones are closely connected and form a continuation of the same conduct. This principle was applied by the Court of Appeal of Bologna in judgment no. 862 of 24 March 2026 (C. App. Bologna no. 862/2026).

Procedure

Possessory claims for repossession are brought by petition under Art. 703 c.p.c. The proceedings include an initial summary-cognition phase, in which the court may order measures necessary to restore the factual situation, and a possible continuation on the merits under the rules provided by that provision. The summary order is subject to challenge. The possessory action is autonomous from questions of ownership: the court assesses the ius possessionis (the factual situation prior to the dispossession), not the ius possidendi (the substantive right to possess). This autonomy makes it generally faster than petitory actions, but the actual duration depends on the court, the completeness of the documentation and the complexity of the dispute.

The Urgent Interim Measure (Art. 700 Code of Civil Procedure)

Where there is urgency, the owner or possessor may apply for the atypical interim measure under Art. 700 c.p.c. The provision allows the court to order whatever urgent measures are necessary to provisionally secure the effects of the substantive remedy, where the right is threatened by an imminent and irreparable prejudice during the time needed to enforce it through ordinary proceedings.

It is not sufficient to allege ownership of the property, occupation without title and a generic loss of enjoyment. The applicant must allege and prove: the fumus boni iuris (likelihood of the right claimed); and a specific periculum in mora, not adequately remediable through ordinary proceedings or subsequent compensation. The Tribunal of Catania, in judgment no. 4742 of 21 November 2023, held that a generic reference to economic prejudice and the inability to access the keys was insufficient, stressing that specific circumstances must be identified, such as the impossibility of using the property as a home, a concrete risk of deterioration or other current needs that cannot be met through compensation (Trib. Catania no. 4742/2023).

An inaudita altera parte order (without hearing the other side) is available only in cases of particular urgency and must subsequently be subjected to inter partes proceedings. An order for immediate vacation is not automatic: it depends on how the application is framed, on proof of the fumus and on demonstration of the periculum. The interim measure, if granted, is intended to provisionally secure the effects of the substantive remedy and may be enforced in accordance with the modalities set by the court and the rules on execution. Art. 700 c.p.c. should therefore not be presented as a remedy that normally leads to immediate vacation of the property in every case of occupation without title.

Vindication and the Personal Action for Restitution

An owner seeking recovery of the property through petitory proceedings may choose between two distinct remedies, the choice depending on the specific grounds of the claim:

• Real action of vindication (Art. 948 c.c.): requires proof of the right of ownership and of the lack of possession. It generally calls for rigorous proof of title, traditionally including proof of the chain of title back to an original acquisition, subject to the evidentiary rules applicable in the specific case.
• Personal action for restitution or vacation: based on the absence or termination of the title justifying the detention. It may be more appropriate where the property was handed over under a contractual relationship — lease, comodato, licence — that has since ended, or where it is alleged that the defendant currently occupies the property without any title. In this case, the claimant does not have to meet the standard of proof required for vindication (Trib. Taranto no. 1217/2025).

Both petitory actions have definitive effect on the determination of title or the basis for possession, but are subject to the timescales of ordinary proceedings, which vary significantly from court to court and cannot be predicted in the abstract.

Vacation Proceedings for Expired or Terminated Leases

Where the occupant was originally a lawful tenant who has remained in the property after the lease expired or was terminated, the remedy is the intimazione di sfratto for expired lease (Art. 657 c.p.c.) or for non-payment of rent (Art. 658 c.p.c.), which initiates summary proceedings. Those proceedings may conclude with validation of the vacation order, if the conditions are met and there is no effective opposition; continue with a change of procedure in the event of opposition; lead to a provisional vacation order in certain cases; or require a judgment on the resolution or termination of the contractual relationship.

The Tribunal of Reggio Emilia, in judgment no. 557 of 12 June 2025, distinguished vacation proceedings for an expired lease from a claim based on an express termination clause and breach, noting that the latter may require continuation under ordinary procedure after the change of rite (Trib. Reggio Emilia no. 557/2025). The rules on the date of execution of vacation are contained in Art. 56 of Law no. 392/1978 (not in the Code of Civil Procedure), which provides, among other things, for the court to fix the date of enforcement. The overall duration of the proceedings — from the initial notice to actual enforcement — cannot be predicted in the abstract and depends on the court, any opposition, the condition of the property and the organisation of the judicial office.

Criminal Remedies

The New Offence: Arbitrary Occupation of Property Intended as Another’s Home (Art. 634-bis Criminal Code)

The most significant legislative development in recent years is the introduction, by Art. 10 of Decree-Law no. 48/2025, of Art. 634-bis of the Criminal Code, headed “Arbitrary occupation of property intended as another person’s home.” This provision fills a gap in criminal protection for those whose main residence or home is occupied.

The offence is committed by anyone who, by means of violence or threats, occupies or holds without title property intended as another person’s home or its appurtenances; prevents the return of the owner or lawful holder; takes possession of the property through deceit or fraud; transfers the occupied property to others; cooperates in or facilitates the occupation; or pays or receives money or other benefits in connection with the occupation. The sentence is imprisonment from two to seven years. The offence is prosecutable on complaint by the injured party, except where it is committed against a person incapable on account of age or infirmity, in which case it is prosecutable ex officio.

Art. 634-bis c.p. does not replace Arts. 614 and 633 c.p.: it applies to the specific conduct described therein and requires, among other things, that the property be intended as another person’s home. The three offences may in principle apply concurrently or be mutually exclusive depending on the specific conduct, the type of property and the mental element.

The Special Repossession Procedure (Art. 321-bis Code of Criminal Procedure)

The procedure under Art. 321-bis c.p.p. was introduced alongside Art. 634-bis c.p. and is the most immediate operational tool for recovering property in cases of arbitrary occupation of a person’s main residence.

Art. 321-bis c.p.p. allows the court, on the application of the public prosecutor, to order repossession of the property or appurtenances that are the subject of the arbitrary occupation under Art. 634-bis c.p. The procedure is particularly significant when the occupied property is the complainant’s only effective home. In that case, the judicial police, following initial inquiries, may proceed without delay to the site; if there are well-founded reasons to believe the occupation is arbitrary, they may order vacation and, in the cases provided by the provision, enforce it coactively with the prior authorisation of the public prosecutor. Strict time limits apply for the transmission of the report and judicial validation.

For a foreign owner whose main home in Italy has been occupied, this procedure may represent the fastest route to recovery of the property, provided the elements of the offence are established and the conditions required by the provision are met.

Criminal Trespass — Home (Violazione di Domicilio, Art. 614 Criminal Code)

Anyone who enters another person’s home against the will of the person entitled to it, or who remains there against that person’s will, clandestinely or by deception, commits the offence of violazione di domicilio (Art. 614 c.p.), punishable in its basic form with imprisonment from one to four years. The sentence is from two to six years where the act is committed with violence against things or persons, or where the offender is openly armed. The offence is prosecutable on complaint, subject to the exceptions provided by the provision. A complaint (querela) and a report (denuncia) are legally distinct acts: a complaint is required for offences prosecutable on private initiative; a report is a communication to the police that does not automatically trigger prosecution.

The offence requires the conscious and intentional entry into or remaining in another person’s home against the express or implied will of the person entitled, or clandestinely or by deception, together with proof of the requisite mental element. The Court of Cassation, Criminal Division V, in judgment no. 17653 of 9 May 2025, clarified that criminal trespass and invasion of premises may concur because they protect different legal interests and have different constituent elements: criminal trespass protects the freedom and privacy of the home; Art. 633 c.p. additionally requires the specific intent to occupy the property or to profit from it (Cass. pen. Div. V no. 17653/2025).

Invasion of Land or Buildings (Art. 633 Criminal Code)

Art. 633 c.p. punishes anyone who arbitrarily invades land or buildings belonging to others, whether public or private, with the intent to occupy them or otherwise profit from them. The sentence in the basic form is imprisonment from one to three years and a fine of between €103 and €1,032. A heavier sentence applies and the offence is prosecutable ex officio where it is committed by more than five persons or by a person who is openly armed; where committed by two or more persons, the sentence of the instigators or organisers is increased.

Invasion does not necessarily require physical violence or clandestinity: it covers arbitrary, unlawful entry into another person’s property. The Court of Cassation, Criminal Division II, in judgment no. 20675 of 4 June 2025, confirmed that occupation may be arbitrary even where the occupant gained entry with the consent of the previous holder, if that holder had no power to grant a valid title of enjoyment (Cass. pen. Div. II no. 20675/2025).

Art. 633 c.p. constitutes a continuing offence where the occupation persists over time: a complaint lodged during the continuation of the occupation is timely, as the offence continues until the occupant leaves or until judicial determination within the limits recognised by case law (Cass. pen. Div. II no. 24489/2023). This is practically significant: for a prolonged occupation, the time limit for lodging a complaint does not run from the date the occupation began but is renewed throughout the duration of the continuing conduct.

Criminal Damage (Art. 635 Criminal Code)

If during the occupation damage is caused to the property or items within it, it may be necessary to assess, based on the specific conduct and the manner of the act, whether the offence of criminal damage under Art. 635 c.p. may also be applicable and whether a claim for compensation may be made. Not every deterioration automatically constitutes the offence: the specific conduct, the object damaged, the mental element and any aggravated forms must all be examined.

Practical Steps: How to Proceed

Step 1: Document the Occupation

Before taking any action, it is essential to gather the necessary documentation:

• cadastral search and title deed for the property, to establish ownership;
• photographs or video of the state of the property and the occupation;
• any communications received from the occupants or neighbours;
• documentation establishing the date of the dispossession or the start of the occupation and the manner of access;
• any documentation of a prior contractual relationship with the occupant.

Step 2: Identify the Most Appropriate Remedy

The choice of remedy depends on the specific circumstances. As a general guide:

• Occupation of the main home through violence or threats: lodge a complaint for the offence under Art. 634-bis c.p. and activate the special procedure under Art. 321-bis c.p.p., which may allow rapid recovery of possession through the intervention of the judicial police;
• Recent violent or clandestine dispossession (within one year): possessory action under Art. 1168 c.c. brought by petition under Art. 703 c.p.c.; possible interim application under Art. 700 c.p.c. if there is a specific and non-remediable periculum; criminal complaint under Arts. 614 and/or 633 c.p.;
• Former tenant who refuses to vacate: intimazione di sfratto for expired lease or non-payment under Arts. 657–658 c.p.c.; possible compensation claim for loss of enjoyment;
• Occupation without title where there was no direct dispossession: consider the personal action for restitution if no title ever existed or has ceased; real action of vindication under Art. 948 c.c. for full protection of the right of ownership;
• Occupation in progress for more than one year: verify whether the time limit for the possessory action has expired; consider the action of vindication or the personal action for restitution; interim application under Art. 700 c.p.c. if the periculum is established;
• Damage to the property: criminal complaint under Art. 635 c.p. and compensation claim in civil proceedings or as a civil party in the criminal proceedings.

Step 3: Initiate the Proceedings

The foreign owner must grant their Italian lawyer a suitable special power of attorney in accordance with the formalities applicable in the country of execution. The specific requirements depend on the country of origin, the possible application of the Hague Convention, the existence of bilateral conventions and any translation requirements. These formalities should not be assumed to be the same in every case: the appointed lawyer will verify the formal requirements for the specific country. For a detailed guide on how to grant a power of attorney from abroad, see our article on power of attorney in Italy for foreign clients.

Once a suitable title has been obtained, vacation is enforced according to the applicable enforcement procedure, normally through the bailiff (ufficiale giudiziario). Any assistance from the law enforcement authorities depends on the content of the title, the manner of enforcement and the orders of the competent authority, and is not an automatic consequence of any vacation order.

Compensation for Losses Arising from Illegal Occupation

The owner deprived of enjoyment of their property is entitled to compensation for the patrimonial damage suffered as a result of the occupation. The legal framework has been defined by the Full Court (Sezioni Unite) of the Court of Cassation and subsequently refined in a number of rulings.

Damage from occupation without title is not automatically in re ipsa (presumed from the mere fact of occupation). The Full Court, in judgment no. 33659 of 15 November 2022, clarified that compensation concerns consequential damage, not the mere infringement of the right: the owner must allege the concrete possibility of direct enjoyment or of letting to third parties that was lost as a result of the occupation. Proof may be provided by way of presumptions, and where the precise amount cannot be established the court may award equitable compensation, possibly by reference to the market rental value (Cass. SS.UU. no. 33659/2022).

Subsequent rulings have further refined these principles:

• Cass. civ. Div. III ord. no. 22695/2026: the owner must allege the concrete possibility of using the property directly or letting it to third parties for consideration; the mere non-use of the property as an abstract entitlement is not compensable. However, the Court held that it is not necessary to have first initiated enforcement proceedings in order to obtain compensation, where the concrete loss of enjoyment has been alleged and proved.
• Cass. civ. Div. III ord. no. 22693/2026: the market rental value is only one of the possible criteria for equitable assessment and is not a mandatory benchmark. The court may use other factors, such as any amounts actually paid by the occupant or the specific characteristics of the property.
• Cass. civ. Div. III ord. no. 34183/2025: proof may be presumptive, but specific indicative elements relating to the nature of the property, its intended use and the utility the owner could have derived from it must be alleged.

The correct formulation of the principle is therefore: the owner must allege the concrete possibility of direct enjoyment or of letting to third parties that was lost; proof by presumptions is admissible; the court may award equitable compensation where the precise amount cannot be established.

Legal costs are governed by Arts. 91 ff. c.p.c. according to the rules on costs following the event and the conduct of the proceedings: they do not constitute an independent head of damage arising from the occupation, but depend on the outcome of the proceedings and the court’s assessment.

Adverse Possession: Relevant Issues for the Owner

An owner who has suffered a prolonged occupation naturally wonders whether the occupant could acquire rights over the property over time. The answer requires several key distinctions.

Art. 1163 c.c. provides that possession acquired by violence or clandestinity does not give rise to adverse possession until the violence or clandestinity has ceased. It follows that violence or clandestinity do not render the possession permanently incapable of leading to adverse possession: they prevent the tainted period from running for adverse possession purposes. Once the taint has ended, the period of peaceful and open possession starts running again.

Where the occupant’s access to the property began under a lease, comodato, licence or other title, the mere continuation after the contractual relationship ended does not automatically convert detention into possession. Art. 1141 c.c. requires a change of title either through an act of a third party or by the holder’s opposition against the possessor. The Court of Cassation, Civil Division II, in judgment no. 7060 of 15 March 2024, confirmed that a holder cannot transform their detention into possession through a mere internal decision or by simply continuing to use the property: external acts, perceptible and specifically directed against the owner as possessor, are required (Cass. civ. Div. II no. 7060/2024; Cass. civ. Div. II ord. no. 25470/2023).

The interruption of adverse possession is governed by Art. 1167 c.c., which includes specific rules on the effect of bringing an action to recover possession. Any owner who wishes to interrupt the running of adverse possession in favour of an occupant should consult a lawyer promptly to assess the available remedies and their interrupting effect.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I call the police directly to have the occupants removed?

It is advisable to lodge a complaint or report promptly, with documentation of your title to the property and the occupants’ conduct. Any immediate police intervention depends on the specific circumstances, whether the offence is in progress, whether a criminal offence is established and the powers available under the law. For properties intended as another person’s home, Art. 321-bis c.p.p. now provides a special procedure linked to the offence under Art. 634-bis c.p., in particular where the complainant’s only effective residence has been occupied, with specific powers for the judicial police. Outside the cases provided by law, the coercive vacation of a property that is already stably occupied normally requires a judicial order and subsequent enforcement proceedings.

How long do I have to take action after the occupation begins?

For the possessory action under Art. 1168 c.c. the time limit is one year from the dispossession or its discovery, taking into account also the moment at which the possessor could have become aware of it using ordinary diligence. After that limit, the possessory remedy is no longer available, but a personal action for restitution, an action of vindication under Art. 948 c.c., interim applications or other remedies may still be available depending on the specific case. For a complaint about invasion of premises under Art. 633 c.p. in a case of continuing occupation, the continuing nature of the offence means the complaint remains timely throughout the duration of the occupation. For the offence under Art. 634-bis c.p. the complaint procedure applies, subject to the exceptions for ex officio prosecution.

Can the occupants acquire rights over the property over time?

Possession acquired by violence or clandestinity does not give rise to adverse possession until the taint has ceased (Art. 1163 c.c.). Where the occupant’s access to the property began under a lease, comodato or other title, the mere continuation after the contractual relationship ended does not automatically convert detention into possession: external acts specifically directed against the owner as possessor are required. It is nonetheless important to act promptly by consulting a lawyer to identify the available remedies and their interrupting effect.

Do I need to be in Italy to take legal action?

No. The foreign owner may grant their Italian lawyer a suitable power of attorney executed in accordance with the formalities applicable in the country where it is signed. Authentication, an apostille or legalisation, and a translation may be required depending on the country of origin, the application of the Hague Convention and the existence of bilateral conventions. The appointed lawyer will verify the specific formal requirements.

Conclusion

The illegal occupation of property in Italy is a serious situation requiring prompt action and a technical assessment of the specific circumstances. Italian law provides effective tools for the owner — from the possessory action for repossession and the urgent interim measure to the special procedure under Arts. 634-bis c.p. and 321-bis c.p.p. and the petitory actions for definitive protection of the right of ownership — which, correctly deployed, enable recovery of possession and compensation for losses suffered. The 2025 legislative reforms significantly strengthened criminal law protection for owners of residential property, introducing powers of immediate intervention by the judicial police that were not previously available.

Studio Legale Giorgianni assists foreign property owners at every stage of protecting their interests in Italy: from preliminary checks and advice through civil and criminal litigation to enforcement of vacation orders and recovery of compensation for unlawful occupation. If you are considering purchasing a property and want to prevent future disputes, our guides on due diligence when buying property in Italy and co-ownership and property disputes in Italy provide useful background. Where the occupant is a former tenant, our article on tenant disputes in Italy for foreign landlords covers the eviction and recovery process in detail. For information on the service and how we can assist, please visit our Italian Property Lawyer page.