{"id":5083,"date":"2026-02-19T14:11:15","date_gmt":"2026-02-19T13:11:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fidanziagigliola.it\/council-of-state-on-precluding-retroactive-recognition-of-green-certificates-for-energy-already-incentivized-under-a-cip-6-92-agreement-with-respect-to-which-the-operator-has-been-declared-a-renoun\/"},"modified":"2026-02-19T14:14:41","modified_gmt":"2026-02-19T13:14:41","slug":"council-of-state-on-precluding-retroactive-recognition-of-green-certificates-for-energy-already-incentivized-under-a-cip-6-92-agreement-with-respect-to-which-the-operator-has-been-declared-a-renoun","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fidanziagigliola.it\/en\/council-of-state-on-precluding-retroactive-recognition-of-green-certificates-for-energy-already-incentivized-under-a-cip-6-92-agreement-with-respect-to-which-the-operator-has-been-declared-a-renoun\/","title":{"rendered":"Council of State: on precluding retroactive recognition of green certificates for energy already incentivized under a CIP 6\/92 agreement with respect to which the operator has been declared a “renouncer.”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Council of State in Jurisdiction – Sec. II – Judgment of February 13, 2026, No. 1162 – Pres. Forlenza, Rel. Cocomile. <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

<\/p>\n\n

The Council of State upheld the appeal brought by the Gestore dei Servizi Energetici against the Lazio Regional Administrative Court’s ruling No. 14350\/2025, which had recognized the right of an economic operator to retroactively receive green certificates on energy production already incentivized through the CIP 6\/92 mechanism, from which the operator had subsequently been disqualified. <\/p>\n\n

In particular, the Council of State pointed out that the regulations on green certificates in Art. 11, paragraph 3, Legislative Decree 79\/1999 and Art. 14, paragraph 1, Ministerial Decree December 18, 2008, must be interpreted in accordance with the literal tenor of the cited provisions and in a strict manner, since it is not possible to admit – in the absence of an explicit regulatory provision to that effect – an expansion of the share eligible for incentives through green certificates in the face of the forfeiture accrued with respect to another mechanism. <\/p>\n\n

On this point, in fact, the Board noted how the relevant legislation, which requires the producer of electricity from renewable sources to choose between joining the CIP 6\/92 Convention and issuing green certificates in its own favor, does not provide for the possibility for an operator who has “renounced” the CIP 6 Convention to earn now-for-then green certificates that it would have earned instead of CIP 6\/92 incentives.<\/p>\n\n

Such a possibility, the Council of State continues, in addition to being contrary to the principle of alternation of incentive measures, conflicts with the nature of legitimate interest inherent in the incentive scheme through green certificates since it would allow the economic operator, in the absence of a legal provision, to “re-expand” the share of energy eligible for incentives through green certificates even in the absence of the necessary administrative activity.<\/p>\n\n

In addition, the collegium noted how the erroneous interpretation followed by the Regional Administrative Court would violate the principles of self-responsibility, whereby any negative consequences of the failure to finalize the facilitation case are the sole responsibility of the operator, and of equal treatment, since it is not compatible with the legal system to change ex post, and with retroactive effects, the decision on which incentive to grant preference, in the face of the ascertained forfeiture of another form of incentive.<\/p>\n\n

<\/p>\n\n