This brief essay examines an institution peculiar to Italian law—virtually unknown even among legal practitioners—precisely because it lacks both a statutory definition and codified regulation: the “livello”. In the Italian legal system, this term designates a range of legal constructs, including a real right of enjoyment, a real burden encumbering land, and, more generally, a set of agrarian law relationships characterised by the grant of enjoyment of land by a large landowner (concedente) to a beneficiary (utilista), who undertakes to cultivate, improve, and pay a fee (also referred to as “livello”). It frequently occurs that, upon examining cadastral certificates, mortgage searches, or old title deeds in Italy, the existence of so-called “oneri livellari” (“livello burdens”) emerges with respect to a parcel of land, arising from contractual relationships both unknown and remote in time, whose respective obligations have likewise not been performed for a considerable period. This paper focuses on the contemporary legal implications of such findings for land transactions and due diligence, with particular attention to the identification of ownership, the conditions under which a livello may be extinguished or redeemed, and the protection of third-party purchasers where the transferor is the livellario (or an assignee) who, in practice, acts and presents himself as the full owner.
Table of Contenents
1. Introduction
The livello is one of the most elusive institutions of Italian property and agrarian law. Despite its persistent presence in land registers, cadastral records, and historical title deeds, it remains largely marginal in contemporary legal discourse and is often perceived as a merely residual or archaic construct. This marginalisation is not accidental. The livello lacks a statutory definition, is not systematically regulated by the Civil Code, and oscillates—both in doctrine and in practice—between different legal qualifications: as a real right of enjoyment, as a real burden encumbering land, or as a broader agrarian relationship involving the long-term grant of land use against the payment of a fee. The main added value of this paper lies precisely in addressing this uncertainty, by offering a systematic and functional reconstruction of the livello as it operates today, beyond its traditional historical framing.
The analysis is not intended to provide a purely historical account of the origins of the livello, nor an exhaustive survey of all doctrinal positions or judicial decisions concerning it. Rather, the scope of the research is deliberately circumscribed. The paper focuses on the contemporary legal relevance of livellary relationships as they emerge in practice—often unexpectedly—during property transactions, due diligence activities, or cadastral and mortgage investigations. Particular attention is devoted to the legal consequences of the long-term inertia of the parties, the non-performance of the obligations originally associated with the livello, and the interaction between these relationships and modern concepts of ownership, circulation of land, and legal certainty.
Against this background, the research pursues three main objectives. First, it aims to clarify the legal nature of the livello within the Italian system, assessing whether and to what extent its assimilation to emphyteusis—frequently adopted in case law—can be justified on a systematic basis. Second, it seeks to identify workable criteria for addressing the practical issues most frequently arising in connection with livellary burdens, such as the identification of the true owner of the land, the possibility of extinguishing or redeeming the livello, and the legal protection of third-party purchasers who acquire land from a livellario acting as de facto owner. Third, the paper uses a targeted comparative perspective—drawing on French, Spanish and German law—not as a descriptive exercise, but as an interpretative tool to test whether the difficulties encountered in Italian law stem from the intrinsic features of long-term land use rights or from the lack of a clear and coherent normative framework.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the historical origins of the livello and its traditional functions within agrarian systems. Section 3 examines the progressive assimilation of the livello to emphyteusis in Italian doctrine and case law, highlighting the limits of this approach. Sections 4 to 9 analyse the main practical issues raised by livellary relationships, including ownership, prescription, usucapion, redemption, and the role of public authorities in declaring or denying their extinction. Section 10 offers comparative remarks, focusing on functionally equivalent institutions in other European legal systems, before concluding with some final considerations on the systemic implications of the livello in contemporary property law.
2. Historical Origins of the “Livello” in Italian Law
The livello is a legal institution rooted in Italian law1, whose origins may be traced back to the Roman era but which took on its characteristic form during the medieval period2. In the context of the Italian legal system, the livello essentially consisted in the grant of an agricultural parcel (and at times an urban property) in return for the payment of a rent.
A more comprehensive definition can only be achieved by means of certain simplifications, justified by the necessity of highlighting the common elements among various distinct legal scenarios under Italian law. In Italy, the Church, ecclesiastical bodies, members of the nobility, or municipalities3—in their capacity as landowners (also referred to as livellanti or direttari)—would grant (and it would not be incorrect to say “sell”) the so-called dominio utile (to be understood as “possession and enjoyment”) over the land, either in perpetuity or for a specified term, in exchange for the payment of an annual fee (likewise called livello)4.
The contract established a real right of enjoyment (diritto reale di godimento) over the land, freely transferable inter vivos or mortis causa5. The grantor retained the dominio diretto (direct ownership) and would reacquire the dominio utile upon the termination of the relationship or upon the death of the livellario. Since the fee was generally quite modest and the grantee typically resided upon and fully exploited the land, the livellario was frequently regarded as the true owner.
The evolution of this institution within Italian law—particularly in the pre-unification legislation—meant that in certain cases the livello was transformed into a real burden (onere reale)6 encumbering the land itself, and therefore the possessor who had become its owner, who was then solely obliged to pay the fee.
Such was the case with certain Italian municipalities that assigned, in full ownership, parcels of public land to the so-called quotisti, while reserving the right to collect the fee from the livellari7: not as owners (as in the case of emphyteusis), but rather as a legacy of ancient feudal regimes in Italy8.
3. Assimilation to Emphyteusis
With the entry into force of the Italian Civil Codes of 1865 and 1942, various agrarian legal relationships—previously identified as “livelli”, “censi”, and “enfiteusi”—definitively lost their individual identities, being grouped together under a single regulatory framework that ultimately equated9 and merged them with the institution of emphyteusis10. This process was also confirmed by Italian case law11, which, on certain occasions, nevertheless underscored specific differences between the various legal figures12.
Pursuant to Articles 957 et seq. of the Italian Civil Code, emphyteusis is defined as a real right of enjoyment (diritto reale di godimento) in favour of the grantee or utilista over land that remains the property of the grantor (also referred to as direttario or holder of the dominio diretto). In light of the fact that this right typically pertained to large tracts of land, often uncultivated or unhealthy13, contracts were generally stipulated “in perpetuity” or for a term not less than twenty years. The rationale for such lengthy durations lay in the need to afford a reasonable period for carrying out essential improvements14—an obligation imposed upon the emphyteuta in addition to that of paying a periodic fee.
Frequently, the interest of the landowner-grantor in the fate of the property diminished to such an extent that the emphyteuta began to act uti dominus, ceasing payment of the fee, neglecting cultivation of the land, and, in some cases, constructing his own dwelling thereon.
4. The Three Types of “Livello” in Italian Law
Three principal types of livello may be identified within the Italian legal system:
- Livelli established over land located in the Veneto region (subject to Law No. 3 of 1974);
- Livelli collected by state administrations and agrarian universities acting as grantors (subject to Law No. 16 of 1974, subsequently repealed, and to Law No. 222 of 1985);
- Livelli granted by ecclesiastical entities or other bodies distinct from the state administration.
Livelli established over land situated in the Veneto region, as well as those collected by state administrations and autonomous state agencies15 acting as grantors, by virtue of Article 1 of Law No. 3/197416 and Article 1 of Law No. 16/197417 or Article 60 of Law No. 222/198518, have been declared extinguished ope legis (by operation of law) on grounds of economic inefficiency; accordingly, the right of the livellario has been converted into full ownership, with a corresponding right to update the cadastral registration19.
If, on the other hand, the grantor is an ecclesiastical entity or a body other than the state administration—such as a municipality—the livello must be regarded as still existing, since the aforementioned statutes do not address such situations20.
5. The Necessary Preliminary Investigations
In order to address the central question posed by this essay, it is first essential to ascertain the actual legal nature of the livello as it emerges from the relevant title deed (atto di provenienza) or from land registry certificates. It is necessary to distinguish whether the payment of the fee is connected to a merely obligatory relationship, or is unequivocally linked to a real right (diritto reale) analogous to emphyteusis under Italian law21.
In the former case, the livellario is the owner of the property, the sole true dominus of the land, subject only to the obligation to pay a periodic and perpetual fee (which is subject to prescription)22.
If, instead, the property is encumbered by a livello that must be classified as an emphyteutic fee (canone enfiteutico) and the case does not fall within any of the statutory grounds for extinguishment of the grantor’s right, it is then necessary to consider what options are available to the emphyteuta/livellario to “release themselves from the encumbrance”.
6. Non-Payment of the Fee for More Than Twenty Years
If the livellario, his heirs, or successors have continued to possess the land without, however, paying the fee (canone) for more than twenty years, the grantor’s right to receive payment of the livello does not become time-barred, nor is it extinguished by non-use, as it constitutes a perpetual prerogative inherent to the right of ownership.
More precisely, it is necessary to distinguish between the obligation relating to individual annual payments that have become due and the obligation to pay the fee as a whole. While the former, being of a personal nature, is subject to a five-year limitation period (Article 2948, no. 1 or no. 4, Italian Civil Code), the latter is imprescriptible, being intrinsically linked to the right of the grantor. This constitutes an obligatio propter rem (a real obligation), which follows the transfers of the land, regardless of who becomes the owner.
The other side of the coin is that the livellario does not become the owner simply by virtue of not having paid the fee for over twenty years23. This is further confirmed by Article 972 of the Italian Civil Code, which entitles the grantor to seek, through judicial proceedings, the reversion (devoluzione) of the land (a form of judicial ascertainment of the extinguishment of the emphyteusis for breach of obligation, resulting in an order for restitution of the land24), without such reversion taking effect automatically25.
7. Usucapion (Acquisitive Prescription)
As previously noted, while it is possible (under Article 970 of the Italian Civil Code) for the concessionaire’s right to lapse as a result of twenty years’ non-use26, dominio diretto (ownership) is imprescriptible (Article 948, Italian Civil Code).
The question thus arises as to whether it is possible to acquire ownership through usucapion following uncontested possession for more than twenty years.
The answer is negative where the livello concerns public property (bene demaniale) or land that is inalienable municipal property.
In other cases, the answer is affirmative; however, proving that usucapion (Article 1158, Italian Civil Code) has occurred is genuinely problematic, since, for the livellario/emphyteuta, it is extremely difficult not only to demonstrate possession ad usucapionem for the statutory period27, but also to prove that an interversio possessionis has taken place.
This latter requirement (mandated by Article 1164, Italian Civil Code) cannot consist merely in an internal or subjective intention on the part of the possessor, but must be manifested through one or more external acts that openly and objectively conflict with the rights of the true possessor, from which it may be clearly and unequivocally inferred that the relationship with the asset has fundamentally changed. In other words, it must be demonstrated that the detentore nomine alieno has ceased to possess on behalf of another and has commenced possession in his own name and for his own account. While this attitude may manifest itself in material acts evincing the intention to possess as owner, it must also be directed unambiguously against the actual possessor, or against the person on whose behalf the asset was previously held, so as to make it externally recognizable to the entitled party that the possessor intends to replace the prior intention of subordinating his own authority to another’s with the intention of claiming the exercised right for himself, thereby converting prior detention into true possession28.
8. Supplementary Evidence of Interversion of Possession
A primary effect of the assimilation of the livello to emphyteusis concerns the application of Article 969 of the Italian Civil Code, which regulates the grantor’s right to demand recognition (ricognizione) of their right from whoever is in possession of the emphyteutic land, once nineteen years have elapsed since the contract was entered into or since the last act of recognition29. This act (known as “devoluzione”) essentially serves to interrupt the running of the statute of limitations or the period for usucapion. It is, however, a mere faculty and not an obligation: if the grantor chooses not to exercise it, they do not, by that fact alone, forfeit their right to the property30.
It follows, therefore, that the absence of acts of recognition does not operate to preserve the grantor’s rights, nor does it result in any loss of ownership31.
In the same vein, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) has deemed irrelevant, for the purposes of interversion of possession and of redemption, the grantor’s failure to renew a mortgage securing the payment of fees.
Presumptions of a change in the possessor’s animus (intention to possess as owner) likewise cannot be derived from the failure to comply with contractual provisions upon which the real right was originally constituted, such as: failure to return the asset at the contractual expiry, non-payment of the fee, or failure to improve the land (mere contractual defaults).
Of greater interest, for the purpose of establishing the possibility of acquiring full ownership by usucapion, are the following circumstances, in which the emphyteuta arrogates to himself the powers of the owner, exceeding a mere situation of contractual non-performance:
- the construction of a building for non-agricultural use on rural land. The filing of the appropriate planning applications and the fulfilment of fiscal and cadastral obligations confirm that the emphyteuta/livellario presents himself to the community as the uti dominus of the land. By openly violating the obligation to improve the land, he seeks and obtains from the public administration the permit to build an urban structure, then proceeds with its construction, and, finally, obtains from the Land Registry the entry of full ownership of the former agricultural land in his own name;
- except in the case of property belonging to the public domain (beni demaniali)32 or land subject to collective civic use33, the transfer to a good faith third party by the original emphyteuta, through a transaction for value (which is duly registered and transcribed), of full ownership of the land, making no mention of the rights in question and warranting the property as free of encumbrances34. After ten years from the date of registration, usucapion in favour of the good faith acquirer occurs, pursuant to Article 1159 of the Italian Civil Code35.
9. Redemption of the “Livello” Fee
Rather than resorting to the complex litigation associated with usucapion, and in view of the assimilation between livello and emphyteusis, it is—at least in theory—much simpler and less costly for the livellario/emphyteuta to exercise the right of redemption (diritto di affrancazione36). In other words, the holder may acquire full ownership of the land by paying an amount equal to fifteen times the annual fee (pursuant to Article 9 of Law No. 1138/1970 and Article 971 of the Italian Civil Code), or, if the fee is unknown, an amount corresponding to the revalued cadastral income (reddito dominicale rivalutato)37.
From a technical standpoint, redemption is thus a potestative right of the emphyteuta/livellario; this means that the grantor cannot oppose the exercise of this right, nor can the grantor compel the livellario to redeem rather than continue paying the fee.
Redemption may result from judicial proceedings38, but in such cases, the party seeking redemption must prove his status as emphyteuta, by providing evidence of:
- the existence of a constitutive title in his favour, or of acts of succession inter vivos or mortis causa;
- the fact that the right has been conveyed to him through an unbroken chain of transfers39. An additional issue lies in the objective determination of the redemption price.
It is much simpler, where the original constitutive title of the livello is missing, to reach an agreement with the grantor by drawing up an actual contract. Such an agreement, often of a transactional nature, unlike judicial proceedings—where the redemption price is mandatory by law—may stipulate a consideration either higher or lower than the statutory amount40.
10. When the Grantor is a Municipality
Starting from the 1990s, certain Italian municipalities, in the course of inventorying their real estate assets, discovered that they were acting as grantors of livelli. Upon finding that, in some cadastral transfers resulting from recent transactions, their rights had been omitted—without having been previously transferred—they proceeded to correct these “errors” of registration at the relevant land agencies. Recognizing their consequent right to collect an annual fee41, the municipalities resolved to reestablish and update the census (censo). They also issued payment requests—sometimes for substantial amounts—to all those identified as livellari. Some municipalities further questioned whether the livellari had the right to redeem (affrancazione) their position in accordance with the rules applicable to emphyteusis42.
Since the right to collect the fee is imprescriptible and non-renounceable43, and the livello, being assimilated to emphyteusis, is not subject to usucapion, the only solutions available to municipalities are as follows:
- to carry out, also in cooperation with the competent regional offices, a thorough review of each case in which they are found to be entitled to fees, censi, livelli, or similar claims;
- to provide for the possibility of redemption (affrancazione)44, thus enabling the livellari to pay a lump sum (amounting to fifteen times the annual fee or, if the fee is no longer traceable, the revalued cadastral income of the land, increased by 80%45 in addition to the ISTAT revaluation index) in order to obtain full ownership of the land46. The interested party will submit a redemption request to the municipality; subsequently, the municipal council, by resolution, will approve the request and determine the corresponding capitalized amount;
- to seek recovery of the last five years of unpaid fees that have not become time-barred;
- once payment has been received, to proceed with the redemption, which may also be implemented by means of an administrative order (determinazione dirigenziale)47, to be registered with the tax benefits provided under Article 2 of Law No. 692/1981 and Circular No. 2/T/2004, authorizing the Land Registry official to record the measure free of taxes48, and to effect the corresponding cadastral update, which will be performed by the applicant.
Naturally, the livellario or holder of the dominio utile may always sell the property encumbered by the livello. Such an encumbrance does not render the property inalienable; the transfer is effected with mention of the encumbrance among the adverse entries. It is then for the purchaser, after the deed is executed, to proceed with redemption should they wish to release the property from the burden deriving from the livello.
11. Comparative remarks on livello-like institutions in European property law
From a broader European perspective, the Italian livello does not emerge as an eccentric anomaly, but rather as a historically sedimented and only partially visible variant of a more general technique: the long-term separation between bare ownership and a strong, transferable right of enjoyment of land, coupled with a recurring fee and, often, duties of improvement. French, Spanish and German law all provide codified instruments that pursue analogous economic and organisational functions.
In French law, the bail emphytéotique confers upon the emphytéote a real right over immovable property for a term usually between eighteen and ninety-nine years, with powers to build, mortgage and transfer, while the bailleur retains ownership of the land and the contract cannot be tacitly renewed49.
In Spain, the censo enfitéutico is structured as a real right that divides dominio directo (vested in the censualista) and dominio útil (vested in the enfiteuta), in exchange for an annual canon, thereby institutionalising a dualistic configuration of ownership that closely resembles the relationship between concedente and livellario50.
German law, finally, frames the Erbbaurecht as an inheritable and transferable limited real right to have a building on another’s land against payment of an Erbbauzins, which exists alongside, but distinct from, the landowner’s title and is governed by a specific statute, the Erbbaurechtsgesetz (ErbbauRG)51.
What clearly distinguishes these regimes from the Italian livello is, in the first place, the explicit and systematic allocation of ownership positions and of the mechanisms for consolidating full title. In Spain, the question “who is the true owner?” is answered normatively by the dualistic scheme of dominio directo and dominio útil, together with the express recognition of redención of the censo, that is, the right of the enfiteuta to redeem the burden through payment of a capital amount, extinguishing the censo and consolidating full ownership in his or her hands52. German law adopts a different model: the Erbbaurecht is conceived ab origine as a time-limited burden on the land, created and made opposable erga omnes only upon entry in the land register (Grundbuch), and normally terminating with the reversion of the building to the landowner, who must pay compensation to the Erbbauberechtigte under the ErbbauRG and the contractual terms. French law, for its part, links the fate of constructions tightly to the term and vicissitudes of the bail emphytéotique: on termination, the landlord recovers the immovable with the buildings and improvements, subject to statutory and contractual compensation regimes; the emphytéote is recognised as holding a particularly extensive real right over the property as long as the contract subsists53. In all these instances, the questions that in Italian practice arise in relation to livello – identification of the “proprietor” in the presence of a long-term real right of enjoyment, and the conditions for extinguishing or redeeming the burden – are addressed within a clear codified framework that combines substantive rules with registration mechanisms.
A second, crucial point of comparison concerns legal certainty in land transactions and the protection of third-party acquirers. In each of the regimes considered, the existence and essential content of long-term land burdens are, at least in principle, reflected in public registers and linked to clear rules on reliance. The Spanish censo enfitéutico is subject to the general principles governing the property register, so that a purchaser can, in theory, ascertain whether he or she is acquiring full ownership or merely the dominio útil, and under what conditions the censo may be redeemed54. In Germany, the Erbbaurecht comes into existence, is ranked vis-à-vis other encumbrances, and is documented through its own Erbbaugrundbuch, which significantly reduces the risk that a buyer will rely on a transferor who is in fact only an Erbbauberechtigter rather than a landowner55. French law similarly treats the droit emphytéotique as a real right whose opposability to third parties depends on appropriate land publicity, allowing purchasers to identify the chain of titles and the precise position of the emphytéote within it. By contrast, the Italian livello remains, in many cases, “filtered” through cadastral certificates and mortgage searches that are either silent or refer only generically to “oneri livellari”, while the underlying contractual framework is opaque or lost, and the criteria for considering the burden extinct or redeemable are applied ex post by the courts, case by case, in the light of possession, prolonged non-payment and supplementary evidence of interversion. The comparative picture suggests that the problematic aspects of livello highlighted in this essay – the ambiguity of ownership positions between concedente and livellario, the uncertain boundaries of usucapion and extinction for non-payment, and the fragility of third-party reliance where the transferor is in fact a livellario who presents himself as full owner – are not inherent in the economic function of long-term land burdens as such.
They are, rather, the consequence of the absence of a modern statutory framework that would domesticate livello within the numerus clausus of real rights, define its relationship with emphyteusis and long-term leases, and, above all, coordinate substantive rules with the system of land publicity. Systems such as those of France, Spain and Germany show that the long-term separation between bare ownership and a strong right of enjoyment can coexist with a high level of legal certainty, provided that the content, duration, extinction and publicity of the right are clearly governed; in this perspective, the Italian experience of livello can be read as an argument in favour of either legislative intervention or, at the very least, a more coherent jurisprudential reconstruction.
12. Conclusions and recommendations
This paper has addressed the livello not as a merely residual or historically exhausted institution, but as a legal technique that continues to produce tangible effects in contemporary Italian property and agrarian law. The main added value of the research lies in having reframed the livello beyond the traditional and often inconclusive alternative between real right and obligatory relationship, by analysing it as a structural device for the long-term separation between bare ownership and a strong right of enjoyment. Through this functional reconstruction, the paper has sought to clarify the legal consequences that arise when livellary relationships—often opaque, undocumented, and dormant for decades—re-emerge in the context of land transactions, judicial disputes, or administrative assessments. In doing so, it has offered criteria capable of orienting the interpretation of issues such as ownership, extinction, redemption and third-party protection, which Italian practice continues to address in a fragmented and case-specific manner.
From a comparative perspective, the Italian experience of livello proves to be particularly instructive. As shown in the preceding section, other European legal systems are familiar with institutions that pursue analogous economic and organisational functions through the long-term dissociation of land ownership and use. French, Spanish and German law all provide codified models—respectively the bail emphytéotique, the censo enfitéutico and the Erbbaurecht—that channel similar interests within clear normative frameworks, combining substantive rules with robust systems of land registration. The relevance of the Italian case therefore extends beyond its national boundaries. Rather than representing an idiosyncratic anomaly, the livello can be read as a paradigmatic example of the difficulties that arise when long-term land use rights are not fully integrated into the numerus clausus of real rights and are left to be reconstructed ex post by courts and practitioners. In this sense, the analysis developed in this paper may offer useful insights for other European jurisdictions grappling with hybrid or atypical forms of land tenure and with the tension between functional needs and formal property categories56.
At the same time, the research is subject to a number of methodological constraints that must be explicitly acknowledged. The livello is an institution that has attracted limited attention in international journal-based scholarship, which tends to focus on broader theoretical issues of property law rather than on historically contingent national constructs. As a result, the literature review necessarily relies on a combination of national doctrinal sources, comparative law studies, and theoretical contributions on property fragmentation and long-term land rights. This limitation, however, is not merely contingent. It reflects a structural feature of the subject-matter: institutions such as the livello often fall in the interstices between classical property law, agrarian law and contractual arrangements, and are therefore underrepresented in mainstream comparative debates. The functional and comparative approach adopted in this paper is intended precisely to respond to this gap, by situating the Italian experience within wider analytical frameworks developed in international property law scholarship57.
The implications of the analysis are not confined to theoretical reconstruction. The issues examined in this paper have a direct impact on the legal community and on legal practice. Uncertainty as to the existence, nature and extinction of livellary burdens affects not only litigants, but also notaries, lawyers, judges and administrative authorities, as well as third parties involved in land transactions. By identifying the points at which Italian practice departs from the standards of legal certainty observable in other European systems—particularly with regard to the coordination between substantive rights and land publicity—the paper aims to contribute to a more predictable handling of livello-related disputes and to a more informed assessment of risks in property transfers. In this respect, the analysis also resonates with broader discussions in property theory on the protection of reliance and the allocation of information costs in land markets58.
Finally, some concluding remarks may be formulated in a forward-looking and policy-oriented perspective. The comparative overview suggests that the most problematic features of the livello do not stem from the economic logic of long-term land use arrangements as such, but from the absence of a coherent statutory framework capable of defining their content, duration, extinction and publicity. While comprehensive legislative reform may not be immediately forthcoming, the Italian experience points at least to the need for a more consistent jurisprudential reconstruction, capable of aligning the treatment of the livello with clearer models of emphyteusis or other long-term real rights. From a broader European viewpoint, the case of the livello also underscores the importance of integrating functional land-use devices within transparent property law systems, a theme that continues to attract attention in comparative and economic analyses of property rights59.
A further implication concerns developing and transitional legal systems. Although the livello is historically specific to Italian property law, the structural problems it generates—namely, the persistence of long-term land-use burdens, the opacity of title positions, and the uncertain coordination between substantive rights and land publicity—are not confined to European contexts. In many developing countries, land tenure arrangements often remain shaped by layered or informal rights of use, incomplete registries, and enduring obligations connected to agricultural land. The Italian experience may therefore serve as a cautionary example of the uncertainty that arises when hybrid forms of land enjoyment are left outside a clear statutory framework and reconstructed only ex post through litigation. From a policy perspective, functional land-use devices can support rural development and investment only if accompanied by reliable registration mechanisms, accessible redemption or consolidation procedures, and predictable rules ensuring third-party reliance.
Further research could build on these insights by extending the comparative inquiry, or by examining empirically how historical land burdens continue to shape contemporary property relations in different legal contexts.
References
Akkermans, B. (2010). Concurrence of ownership and limited property rights. European Review of Private Law, 18(2).
Andrini, M. C. (1991). Usi civici ed attività notarile. Vita notarile, 802.
Ariño, B., & Faus, M. (n.d.). Censo enfitéutico. Guías Jurídicas Aranzadi, Thomson Reuters (aggiornamento online). Accessed on 22 January 2026.
Balottin, J. (2008). Alienazione di terreni gravati da livelli e canoni enfiteutici. Rivista del Notariato, 2008, 1211.
Benedetto, M. A. (1963). Livello. In Novissimo Digesto Italiano Utet, Vol. IX, 987–990.
Blandy, S., Bright, S., & Nield, S. (2018). The dynamics of enduring property relationships in land. Modern Law Review, 81(1), 85–113. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.12317.
Calderoni, C. (2008, October 23). Esecuzione forzata e presenza di livelli o canoni enfiteutici (Studio del Consiglio Nazionale del Notariato No. 18). Retrieved from https://www.notariato.it/wp-content/uploads/18.pdf. Accessed on 22 January 2026.
Carbonnier, J. (1988). Droit civil. Les biens. Presses universitaires de France.
Casino, M. A. (2017). Prescrittibilità di censi e livelli. Notariato, No. 4, 407–422.
Cheuvreux Notaires. (2019). Bail emphytéotique et bail à construction (Note de synthèse).
Code rural et de la pêche maritime. (n.d.). Art. L. 451-1.
Código Civil español. (n.d.). Arts. 1604–1664; 1642–1643; 1651.
Consiglio Nazionale del Notariato [National Council of Notaries]. (1996). Studio n. 469 bis-479 bis: Accertamento di congruità dell’indennità di affrancazione di fondo enfiteutico [Assessment of the adequacy of the redemption indemnity for emphyteutic land].
Cooter, R. (1982). The cost of Coase. Journal of Legal Studies, 11(1), 1–33. doi: 10.1086/467690.
De Gruyter. (n.d.). BGB Kommentar. Gesetz über das Erbbaurecht (ErbbauRG). https://doi.org/10.9785/9783504388287-090.
Demsetz, H. (2002). Toward a theory of property rights II: The competition between private and collective ownership. Journal of Legal Studies, 31(2), S653–S672. doi: 10.1086/342028.
Díez-Picazo y Ponce de León, L. (2008). Fundamentos del Derecho civil patrimonial. T. III: Las relaciones jurídico-reales. El Registro de la Propiedad. La posesión. Civitas.
Ellickson, R. C. (1993). Property in land. Yale Law Journal, 102(6), 1315–1400.
Erbbaurechtsgesetz (ErbbauRG). (1919). Gesetz über das Erbbaurecht. Reichsgesetzblatt, 1919, 72.
Funaioli, C. A. (1959). Canoni, censi e livelli. In Enciclopedia del Diritto Milan: Giuffrè.Vol. V, pp. 1082.
Gambaro, A. (1995). Property rights in civil law. Tulane Law Review, 69, 1587–1609.
Gray, K. (1991). Property in thin air. Cambridge Law Journal, 50(2), 252–307. doi: 10.1017/S0008197300080508.
Guide des baux constitutifs de droits réels. (2018). Le Moniteur Juris (spec. chap. 3: bail emphytéotique).
Lambea Rueda, A. (2023). Censos y derecho de superficie. Univ. Complutense de Madrid.
Le bail emphytéotique. (2023). In 119e Congrès des notaires de France.
Leo, M., & Ruotolo, A. (2006, January 11). Affrancazione di livello. Response to Question No. 5931-2005. CNN notizie.
Lomonaco, C. (2007). Prelazione artistica ed affrancazione di livello. Studi e materiali, 2007, 1318.
Magnani, A. (2019). Il livello oggi enfiteusi: che vi sia ciascun lo dice, cosa sia – e come si cancelli nessun lo sa. Rassegna di diritto civile, 2019, 1437–1469.
Malaurie, Ph., Aynès, L., & Stoffel-Munck, Ph. (2013). Les biens (6th ed.). LGDJ.
Martínez, A. B. (n.d.). Los censos: concepto y naturaleza. Estudios de Teoría y Filosofía del Derecho (UNED). Retrieved from revistas.uned.es. Accessed on 22 January 2026.
Mattei, U. (1994). Efficiency in legal transplants: An essay in comparative law and economics. International Review of Law and Economics, 14(1), 3–19. doi: 10.1016/0144-8188(94)90032-9
Musolino, G. (2001). Enfiteusi e affrancazione del bene. Rivista del notariato, No. 2, 154.
34. Musolino, G. (2013). Il livello: un diritto reale assimilabile all’enfiteusi. Rivista del notariato,. 3,702.
Palandt. (2023). Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (82.nd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.
Pera. A. (2005). Prescrittibilità di canone non riscosso. Quesito N. 5350/C. In Studi e materiali,. 2, 1837.
Pesl, D. (1910). Das Erbbaurecht. Geschichtlich und wirtschaftlich dargestellt. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot (Reprint 2013)
Staudinger, J. (2021). BGB: Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen. Buch 3: Sachenrecht: ErbbauRG (Erbbaurechtsgesetz) (M. Rapp & W. Wiegand, Eds.). Otto Schmidt/De Gruyter.
Vaccari. P. (1965). Enfiteusi. Parte storica. Enciclopedia del Diritto Vol. XIV,. 916–919. Milano: Giuffrè.
Van Erp, S. (2013). The functional comparative method in European property law – C. Godt: some comments. European Property Law Journal, 2(1), 90–94. doi: 10.1515/eplj-2013-0006
Von Oefele, H. F., & Winkler, K. (2008). Handbuch des Erbbaurechts (4th ed.). C. H. Beck.
The full text of the article is published in Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 37, n. 51 (2026) pp. 41-67.
DOI: 10.2478/jles-2026-0003
Author: Francesco Tedioli
Do you want to read the article offline? Save it as a PDF and share it with colleagues
Publications
- Agricultural Law, Commercial Law
- Agricultural Law, Commercial Law
