The regulatory landscape surrounding cannabis is intricate, varying significantly based on its intended use, ranging from pharmaceutical to cosmetic, food, technical, and industrial applications. To navigate these complexities with clarity, it is practical to categorise the discussion into three distinct sections:
Medical Cannabis
In Italy, the primary legislative framework governing medical cannabis is Presidential Decree No 309/1990, the Italian Narcotics Act (Testo Unico Stupefacenti). Article 14, paragraph 1, letter b) of this Act stipulates the inclusion of cannabis and its derivatives in Table II of narcotic substances subject to supervision, prohibiting cannabis in its various forms, including flowers and leaves, oil and resin.
In Italy, cannabis is, as a rule, a narcotic substance, subject to exceptions based on its scope and intended use.
Cultivation, extraction of active ingredients, distribution, import and export are in fact subject to authorisation by the Ministry of Health – Central Narcotics Office (l'Ufficio Centrale Stupefacenti, UCS), which is the state agency for cannabis intended for scientific or research purposes.
The Ministry of Health Decree dated 9 November 2015 adopted the Collaboration Agreement between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Defence for the launch of the Pilot Project for the national production of cannabis-based substances and preparations of plant origin.
The purpose of this project was to develop national production in order to supplement the imports of cannabis that had hitherto been exported to Italy by the Office for Medicinal Cannabis of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (Bedrocan, Bediol, Bedrobinol and Bedica).
According to this agreement, the only national entity authorised to produce medical cannabis is the Stabilimento Chimico Farmaceutico Militare based in Firenze (SCFM), which has developed the cannabis varieties FM2 (with THC content 5/8% and CBD 7.5/12%) and FM1 (with THC content 13/20% and CBD less than 1%) produced in accordance with EU Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) in a pharmaceutical workshop authorised by the Italian Drug Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA) and whose distribution is authorised by the UCS.
Recently, a public call for tenders was launched for the cultivation of cannabis for therapeutic use to be contracted to the SCFM. The selection and award process is still pending (see 3.1 Access to Medical Cannabis).
Cannabis prescription and magistral preparations
Law No 94/1998 (the so-called Di Bella Law), which regulates “off-label” drugs, is the reference law for the prescription and administration of therapeutic cannabis.
Physicians may prescribe magistral preparations to be prepared by a pharmacist upon presentation of a non-repeatable medical prescription using Dronabinol or cannabis-based plant active substance for medical use.
Physicians must supplement the prescriptions with anonymous patient data on age, sex, dosage by weight of cannabis and treatment requirements according to the relevant form, which must then be transmitted to the competent region for statistical purposes. All physicians may prescribe cannabis regardless of their specialisation. Magistral preparations can be used in two different ways: orally or by inhalation.
Reimbursability of drugs charged to the National Health System (Il Servizio Sanitario Nazionale, SSN)
Law No 172/2017 provides that medical cannabis is reimbursable through the SSN, but this reimbursement is confined to treatments for specific pathologies:
Despite the national provision for reimbursement, the practical application of this law varies significantly across different Italian regions. Each region is responsible for establishing its own technical modalities for the reimbursement process. Paid medical cannabis, on the other hand, can be bought in pharmacies outside one’s region of residence.
Extracts
As set out above, extracts are included in Table II of the Narcotics Act.
However, a key principle exists: Legislative Decree No 219/2006 prioritises regulations for medicinal products. This means if a product with specific characteristics could be classified as both a medicine and another type of product it will be treated as a medicine.
This principle became relevant with the registration of the medicinal product Epydiolex (a CBD isolate with MCT oil) with the European Medical Agency (EMA). Since CBD is now an official active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in the European Pharmacopoeia, CBD isolates are considered medical products.
In June 2021, the Ministry of Health published guidelines for obtaining authorisations for the cultivation of cannabis intended for CBD extraction for medical use. This process requires a double authorisation:
In essence, a prior agreement is required between the farm (which is authorised to grow and supply the product to the pharmaceutical company) and the pharmaceutical company (which is authorised to supply the hemp produced by the farm, as well as the extraction of API). To date, only two extraction licences have been issued.
Finally, it should be mentioned that by Ministerial Decree dated 7 August 2023, the Ministry of Health lifted the suspension of the so-called 2020 Speranza Decree, which included CBD-containing preparations for oral use in the table of narcotic drugs annexed to the Narcotics Act.
This decree has been challenged and is currently suspended by the competent Administrative Court, with the next hearing set for September 2024.
Hemp and Cannabinoids
Hemp is defined as cannabis sativa L. from certified varieties registered in the Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species, pursuant to Article 17 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002, which do not fall under the scope of the Italian Narcotics Act.
The reference law is Law No 242/2016, which consists of a framework law for the support and promotion of the agro-industrial hemp production chain.
This law incentivises:
The cultivation of hemp can be carried out by the farmer without the need for prior authorisation. The farmer is only obliged to keep the seed card for one year and the purchase invoice for the period required by tax regulations (ten years).
Crop controls and THC limits
Article 4 of Law 242/2016 sets the THC limits in the field at 0.2% (from 1 January 2023 the limit was raised at the European level to 0.3% following the CAP reform) with a margin of tolerance up to 0.6%.
If police controls detect THC levels exceeding 0.6%, the law mandates the seizure and destruction of the crop. However, it is critical to note that the farmer is shielded from criminal liability provided they have adhered to the stipulations of Article 3 of the same law. This includes maintaining proper documentation such as the card and seed purchase invoices, which serve as proof of compliance with regulatory requirements.
Checks must be carried out by the Carabinieri Forestali according to the method of sampling and analysis foreseen in Annex I of Reg. (EU) no. 1155/2017, but may also be carried out by any police force in the exercise of investigative activity (see 1.6 Enforcement & Penalties).
Destinations of use
According to Article 2(2) of Law 242/2016, hemp crops can be used to produce:
This list is considered exhaustive and requires compliance with regulations specific to each application.
Foods
Hemp-based foods in Italy are regulated by the Ministerial Decree of the Ministry of Health dated 4 November 2019, which states:
Importantly, these limits are to be considered modified due to the effect of Regulation (EU) No 1393/2022, which sets the THC limits at the European level to 7.5 ppm for hemp seed oil and 3 ppm for seeds and flours.
THC in foodstuffs is, in fact, considered a contaminant and therefore regulated by Regulation (EU) No 915/2023, which modified the previous Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006.
The Ministerial Decree in question provides for the possibility of introducing additional foodstuffs containing hemp, but this would require presenting new scientific evidence to support such inclusion. For further details, please see the Trends and Development article.
Food supplements
Food supplements are: “foodstuffs intended to supplement the common diet and which constitute a concentrated source of nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, or other substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, in particular, but not exclusively, amino acids, essential fatty acids, fibres and extracts of plant origin, whether mono- or multi-compound, in pre-dosed forms”.
Food supplements are regulated by Regulation (EC) No 1170/2009 (which amended Directive 2002/46/EC) and at the national level by Legislative Decree No 169 of 21 May 2004 implementing Directive 2002/46/EC and by the Ministerial Decree dated 9 July 2012 on the “Regulation of the use of plant substances and preparations in food supplements”. According to the tables attached thereto, and also by virtue of the BELFRIT agreement signed with Belgium and France, only supplements based on hemp seeds or hemp seed oil are permitted in Italy.
To date, products based on parts other than seeds or extracts cannot therefore be considered food or food supplements at the regulatory level. For other issues, such as novel food and expected developments, see 3.2 Non-controlled Cannabinoids in Food and the Trends and Development article.
Cosmetics
Cosmetic products are regulated by Regulation (EC) No 1223/09. This regulation is supplemented by the Cosmetic Ingredient Database (CosIng List), which, while not legally binding, is widely regarded as a key reference point for industry professionals. The CosIng List helps standardise labelling practices across the EU, and therefore also in Italy.
In Italy, CBD and CBG in their isolated forms are recognised as permissible ingredients for use in cosmetic formulations provided they are produced synthetically or obtained from non-prohibited parts of the cannabis sativa L. plant (ie, leaves, roots, shoots and seeds), as well as extracts of such parts.
These products are therefore marketable as long as the label states the intended purpose (topical/external use), and the functionalities and commercial claims align with the cosmetic purpose.
This category can be considered the only product category in which CBD oils can be considered compliant with regulations.
Floriculture
The field of floriculture is regulated by a multitude of EU-derived regulations, which outline the scope of application of the legislation with important terminological and definitional specifications, as well as indicating the authorisation system and the requirements for conducting floricultural activities.
In particular, Article 2 of Legislative Decree No 214/2005 clarifies the definitions by establishing that “plants” refer to live plants and parts of plants, including cut flowers and leaves.
It is therefore clear that Article 2(2)(g), having included cultivation for floricultural purposes among the (mandatory) legal uses of hemp, makes it lawful to also produce these plants and their parts for ornamental purposes.
The Ministry of Agriculture, in Circular No 5059 dated 5 May 2018, has specified with reference to hemp that the production of hemp plants and their parts, such as leaves, fronds, inflorescences and ornamental cuttings, according to the sector’s regulations in force, falls within lawful activities, provided that it is a final product, not intended for further floricultural production, subject to the legal limits for THC content. It can therefore be considered that in Italy the production and sale of ornamental hemp plants is lawful provided they are germinated from certified seeds.
This guidance explicitly states that ornamental hemp, including its various plant parts like flowers, leaves, fronds, and cuttings, is lawful as long as it is intended for end-use in an ornamental capacity only. This use excludes any possibility of further floricultural activities. Since ornamental hemp is not intended for human consumption, concerns regarding its psychotropic effects are largely irrelevant. By way of analogy, one may cite the example of oleander, a plant known to be toxic, which is freely sold without any special precautions being taken. However, the regulation of flowers is complex and intrinsically linked to the issues dealt with in the appropriate section below.
Fibres
Fibres do not present any particular legal or interpretative problems as they are unquestionably lawful.
The problems, on the other hand, concern the supply chain as there are critical production issues due to the scarcity of processing plants.
CBD flowers (so-called cannabis light)
The spread in 2017 of so-called cannabis light – ie, the sale of dried inflorescences of hemp from varieties certified for “technical use” or “collecting”, sparked immediate seizures, and case law was divided between one side that held that the flowers were case covered by Law 242/2016 and another that held that they were covered by the narcotics legislation because the flowers (like the leaves) were included in the narcotics table.
The matter was referred to the United Sections of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which ruled, while also calling on the legislature to provide clarity on the matter, that:
In the absence of legislative clarification, the sale of CBD flowers has become a widespread but legally precarious practice across Italy. Enforcement varies significantly, with authorities handling cases discretionally, leading to a patchwork of legal interpretations and enforcement practices. This has resulted in numerous seizures and criminal proceedings, each treated differently depending on the region and specific circumstances.
In essence, a paradoxical situation has arisen in which industrial hemp flowers and resins are not covered by the law (at least for retail sale), but their sale does not involve criminal offences since they do not have an intoxicating effect in practice.
CBD flowers are in any case mostly sold for ornamental purposes as end products of the floricultural supply chain with a THC content of less than 0.5% to avoid psychotropic effects.
Psychotropic efficacy
The concept of “intoxicating efficacy” lacks a clear, universally accepted definition and is subject to interpretation by individual judges on a case-by-case basis.
In some cases, the limit of 0.5% THC (sum of THC and THCA) is applied as an absolute weighted figure borrowed from forensic toxicology. Thus, in many cases, if the CBD flower limit is below this threshold, many proceedings end in dismissal or acquittal.
In other cases, some public prosecutors’ offices have taken a radical stance that flowers are always considered narcotics regardless of THC content. In such proceedings, the total active ingredient present in the seized goods is multiplied and divided by the average single dose with the consequence that the defendant is charged with dealing “doses” of narcotics.
The issue may be resolved in the pending criminal trial against Luca Marola, founder of Easy Joint, a pioneer company in the sector. He is accused in Parma of drug dealing for possessing 700 kg of hemp sativa with a THC content of less than 0.2% but which, according to the Prosecutor's Office, translates to about 200,000 doses.
This situation exemplifies the major problem plaguing the Italian system: chronic legal uncertainty. The lack of clear regulations forces businesses to navigate this uncertainty, often basing their operations on risk management strategies that vary by region.
CBD oils
A large number of products are also sold on the Italian market as CBD oil, which, except for a few that are registered in accordance with the cosmetic regulations referred to above, are sold for an unspecified use as “technical” oils.
Such oils are often seized by the authorities, sometimes citing a violation of the Narcotics Act and sometimes a violation of Legislative Decree No 219/06 on medicinal products.
CBD oils present the same problems as CBD flowers with regard to the narcotics legislation, which are resolved by assessing psychotropic efficacy (however, this is more straightforward as they are rarely marketed with a THC content higher than 0.2%).
At the same time, they present greater problems in relation to the regulation of medicinal products for the reasons set out above.
In fact, in many cases the criminal proceedings instituted following an allegation of infringement of Legislative Decree No 219/06 end with the acquittal of the accused. This stems from the lack of a clearly defined offence, violating the principle that criminal offences require a clear taxonomical definition.
In any case, the fate of these products is intrinsically linked to the appeal pending before the Administrative Court and the developments discussed in the Trends and Development article.
Recreational Cannabis
The recreational use of cannabis is prohibited in Italy by the Narcotics Act. Possessing cannabis for personal use is not criminally prosecuted but is subject to administrative sanctions. These sanctions can have significant personal consequences, affecting one’s eligibility for driving licenses, firearm permits, passports for international travel, and various types of work permits.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court recently affirmed the principle that the cultivation of cannabis for personal use with rudimentary means does not constitute criminally relevant conduct.
This orientation of the Supreme Court is instrumental in shaping the pending bills referred to in 3.3 Decriminalisation.
The regulatory bodies that oversee the system for the production of pharmaceutical-grade cannabis and cannabinoids are essentially the UCS in its capacity as the State Cannabis Board established under the Single Convention and AIFA.
The following should also be noted:
In Italy, the field of medical cannabis is supported by a diverse and active network of associations that advocate for patient rights, address issues related to cannabis availability, reimbursement by the SSN, and the education of medical personnel. They include SIRCA (the Italian Cannabis Research Society), SICAM (the Italian Medical Hemp Society), and the Luca Coscioni Association, which has been active since 2002 in the area of the protection of civil liberties and human rights throughout the country with particular attention to the freedom of scientific research and the freedom of self-determination.
In the hemp sector, the Ministry of Agriculture has set up the Hemp Sector Table, in which stakeholders in the sector at the regulatory, scientific and association levels participate, and which is working on the new hemp sector plan.
Active nationally are the associations Federcanapa, Canapa Sativa Italia, and Resilienza Italia, which deal with the promotion and protection of the supply chain.
Self-regulation documents have also been adopted by operators:
There are also many associations operating at a regional level, such as the Ente Tutela Innovazione Canapa Toscana (E.T.I.CA.) in Tuscany, which signed a memorandum of understanding with the Regional Command of the Carabinieri Forestry Department to standardise the control and analysis procedures of hemp cultivation in Tuscany.
Hemp
For years, operators in the sector in Italy have found themselves operating in a grey area, particularly regarding flowers and extracts. The United Sections of the Court of Cassation had already highlighted the need for clarifying legislation in 2019. Despite various amendment proposals, the law has not been supplemented and there is still a situation of general uncertainty, with differences in interpretation and application by the competent authorities from case to case and from area to area.
The long-standing challenge for operators in the sector has been to obtain legal and regulatory clarity for the production and sale of flowers and extracts. For this reason, the lobbying activities carried out both through dialogue with the competent authorities and by challenging decrees detrimental to the sector (see the Trends and Development article) are cornerstones for the development and regulation of the industry.
The main challenge is to delineate a field of application in the category of nutraceuticals, phytotherapeutic products and food supplements, which represent that intermediate band between foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals. In essence, it is a matter of carving out a legal and regulated sector for the production and sale of health products that are not the exclusive domain of pharmaceutical companies, but also of the industry in the sector, which in recent years has demonstrated its ability to capitalise on research results applied to the realisation of industrial products.
Medical Cannabis
In the medical cannabis sector, the fundamental challenge is to implement and develop national production by opening it up to private companies with production know-how superior to that of the SCFM. In essence, it is a matter of overcoming the current “monopolist” approach by contracting out cannabis production to private companies capable of guaranteeing suitable quality standards. This objective presupposes a series of synergetic and strategic actions throughout the supply chain, starting with the training of medical personnel.
To increase national production, it is necessary for the regions to transmit annual data on medical cannabis prescriptions to the Ministry of Health. Therefore, it is necessary for doctors to be adequately trained and informed about the potential of medical cannabis, as medical prescriptions are an essential element of the supply chain.
The risks in the hemp industry are more pronounced compared to the medical cannabis sector, which benefits from clearer legislation. There remain numerous interpretative and application-related grey areas, creating an uncertain framework for industry operators. This is especially true for those dealing with CBD flowers and CBD oil, where legal uncertainties compel operators to make decisions based on risk management. Essentially, operating in this sector involves entrepreneurs consciously accepting a level of risk.
Understanding the local culture and legal landscape is crucial for developing and managing business operations effectively. Given the complexity of the regulations and legal interpretations involved, it is vital for operators to engage with professionals who specialise in this area.
Legal risks vary significantly across different production segments. The marketing of products, whether business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-consumer (B2C), such as CBD flowers and CBD oil, often encounters significant legal challenges, including frequent product seizures. Additionally, the extraction of cannabinoids presents its own set of issues, stemming from the overlapping jurisdictions of narcotics and industrial hemp legislation.
A thorough understanding of the specific legislation applicable to each sector, whether industrial, cosmetics, or others, is essential. Such knowledge enables proper activity framing and the effective management and profiling of associated risks. Regrettably, the industrial hemp sector still faces widespread risks, both criminal and administrative, which stem not only from narcotics legislation but also from the sector-specific regulations governing various uses.
For penalties, see 1.6 Enforcement & Penalties.
In Italy, cannabis in its forms such as flowers, leaves, oils, and resins is classified as a narcotic, subjecting it to strict controls and sanctions under narcotics legislation, despite ongoing legal disputes and differing interpretations. Consequently, all Italian police forces are authorised to conduct checks on cannabis and its derivatives as part of their judicial police duties.
Law No 242/2016 stipulates, in particular, that controls on industrial hemp crops are carried out by the Carabinieri Forestali according to the protocol provided for in Reg. (EU) No. 1155/2017, All. I. If a potential offence is detected at any stage of the supply chain, the police can initiate legal action under the Consolidated Narcotics Act, leading to possible criminal proceedings by the competent Public Prosecutor’s Office. Most of these proceedings are concluded with dismissal if laboratory analyses confirm that the THC content is below the level that can produce psychotropic effects.
In addition to the controls and sanctions arising from the Narcotics Act, it is also necessary to check compliance with the sector regulations relating to the individual uses of the products (food, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, etc). Non-compliance can lead to penal or administrative sanctions, including fines, suspension of activities, or other regulatory measures.
Given the ambiguity in product classification, especially with CBD flowers and CBD oils, the potential issues arising from regulatory controls are varied and heavily dependent on the type of enforcement and the authority conducting it.
Given the complexity of the regulations in this field, it is imperative for operators in the sector of hemp and its derivatives to seek legal advice.
The industrial hemp and cannabinoid sector in Italy, much like in many other EU countries, continues to navigate through significant legal grey areas and risks. The stance of Italian authorities towards the hemp plant broadly aligns with that of Spain and Portugal, where currently only hemp seeds and fibres are recognised as legal.
At the same time, recent rulings by the Administrative Court (discussed in more detail in the Trends and Development article) have affirmed the same principles established by the French Conseil d'Etat and even earlier by the European Court of Justice on the lawfulness of using the entire hemp plant from certified varieties.
In any case, it is possible to say that the evolution of the sector, with particular reference to the food and supplement sector, will depend on the decisions at European level that will be taken by the EFSA (see 3.2 Non-controlled Cannabinoids in Food).
In general, in view of the differences in interpretation of certain product categories between the various member states, the EU has started a process of acquiring data from operators in the sector in order to define a single European regulation in order to avoid alterations to the common market.
Within the general European framework, an extremely important role will also be played by developments in the UK and Switzerland, countries which, although not part of the EU, nevertheless play a very important role in both regulatory and commercial terms.
While access to medical cannabis in Italy is not hampered by major legal hurdles, the system suffers from limitations rooted in political choices. The production of medical cannabis is tightly controlled by the Ministry of Defence through the SCFM, alongside a reliance on imports, which underscores a major limitation in the current Italian system.
A call for tenders was issued in 2022 to allow private companies to grow medical cannabis for supply to the SCFM. Companies were selected but to date the procedure is suspended while waiting for the Administrative Authority to rule on the appeals of some participants.
The SCFM’s monopoly stifles competition, hindering advancements in the quality, quantity, and efficacy of medical cannabis. The ideal solution would involve a significant policy shift, allowing private enterprises, once they have obtained the necessary authorisations, to cultivate and directly distribute medical cannabis to pharmacies in a free market system. However, such changes are complex and challenging to implement, suggesting a lengthy and difficult road ahead.
At the same time, there has been an opening for the importation of cannabis and API-based medicines from other EU member states, as the Ministry of Health has authorised the importation of such products to certain pharmaceutical companies or distributors. While this approach broadens access to medical cannabis and could serve as a model for replication, it inadvertently places domestic producers at a disadvantage.
Italy considers cannabinoids and all parts of the plant with the exception of seeds and derivatives as novel foods by not recognising their traditional use prior to 15 May 1997.
Prior authorisation by the EFSA is therefore required for their production and marketing.
At the moment, several Italian companies have started the process of obtaining this authorisation from the EFSA either individually or through participation in the Novel Food Consortium promoted by the EIHA. At present, the application for CBD isolates extracted from the plant has been submitted and the relative risk assessment is pending, which, except for suspensions due to the further request for clarifications, will end in October 2024.
The application for authorisation of full-spectrum extracts will also be submitted shortly.
Pending issues related to the use of parts other than seeds in food, also with reference to the use of hemp as a medicinal plant, are dealt with in the Trends and Development article.
For a long time, there have been periodic initiatives to regulate the recreational use of cannabis.
In December 2023, the platform “Meglio Legale” submitted a proposal for a popular initiative bill to the Court of Cassation aimed at legalising domestic cannabis cultivation. This proposal outlines specific provisions for both individual and collective cultivation. In the first case, cultivation of up to four plants and consequent possession of the proceeds is permitted, while collective cultivation consists of the opening of so-called cannabis social clubs, private associations with a maximum of 200 members each, in which it is possible to cultivate a maximum of four plants per member. In this case, the sale of the finished product to members would be capped at 30 grams per month.
The process of collecting the required 50,000 signatures to move the bill forward is expected to be completed by spring 2024. Following this, the bill will be submitted to either the Chamber of Deputies or the Senate of the Republic, where it will be scheduled for discussion. The legislative procedures differ between the two branches: the Senate is mandated to include citizens’ initiative bills in its agenda, whereas in the Chamber of Deputies, inclusion is at the discretion of the president and parliamentary groups.
Given the precedents and the quality of the majority in parliament, which is composed of parties ideologically opposed to any form of cannabis regulation, it seems predictable that this initiative will not be followed up.
The function of this initiative, however, according to the organisers, is to keep the political and social debate on narcotics alive, to create an even wider network of activists in view of future initiatives, and to demonstrate how Italian society is ready for the regulation of cannabis.
Palazzo S. Elisabetta
Via Giovanni Marradi n. 4
57126 Livorno
Italy
+390586829092
+390586829092
info@studiolegalebulleri.eu www.studiolegalebulleri.euIntroduction
The cannabis and cannabinoid sector in Italy is currently mired in significant legal uncertainty, largely due to how authorities interpret the nexus between narcotics laws, medicinal regulations, and legislation concerning industrial and European hemp. Despite global trends indicating a growing acceptance and interest in cannabis and its derivatives, Italian regulatory bodies maintain a stringent adherence to the strict letter of narcotics laws. This approach starkly overlooks recent updates in EU and national regulations specifically addressing cannabis from certified varieties.
This rigid interpretation stands at odds with the original intent of narcotics legislation, which aims to prevent the consumption of substances that are toxic and harmful to humans. This foundational principle seems hardly applicable to cannabis products that, in practical terms, lack psychotropic effects.
Such restrictive views have not only fostered a repressive regulatory stance towards emerging cannabis products, particularly flowers and extracts but have also given rise to many court cases in both criminal and administrative courts.
The Status Quo
Even after the European Court of Justice’s ruling in the Kanavape case, the Italian authorities have continued to ignore the demands of the sector by enforcing outdated prohibitions. Under their current interpretation, only hemp seeds and fibres are considered permissible, creating a stark contrast with both EU directives and national laws that are more inclusive.
This inconsistency is particularly glaring when considering Law No 242/2016, the framework legislation for the sector. This law explicitly exempts certified hemp varieties from narcotics legislation. It defies logic that a plant classified as an agricultural product (further reinforced by EU regulations) can morph into a narcotic based solely on the harvested part.
This restrictive interpretation has ignited strong opposition from legal scholars and courts. They point to the lack of psychoactive effects in industrial hemp and the contradiction with EU law as insurmountable obstacles to this theory.
These opposing arguments culminated in an appeal filed by hemp trade associations before the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (“TAR Lazio”) against an Interministerial Decree on medicinal plants.
Judgments No 2313 and 2316 of 14 February 2023 of TAR Lazio
The Italian state issued an Interministerial Decree on 7 August 2023 that was supposed to contain the list of officinal plants as part of a reform initiated by Legislative Decree No 75/2018, which recognised all cultivation and initial processing activities of these plants as agricultural.
However, the decree controversially noted that while the cultivation of hemp seeds and fibres was governed by the national law on industrial hemp, the production of flowers and leaves would be governed by the Narcotics Act. The associations of the sector (Canapa Sativa Italia, Resilienza Italia onlus, Sardinia Cannabis and Federcanapa) challenged the decree, claiming that it was contradictory and in contrast with EU and constitutional law. The applicants pointed out that the supranational legislation and, in particular, the EU legislation did not distinguish between the parts of the hemp sativa plant coming from certified varieties classified as a whole as an agricultural product.
Moreover, Regulation No 1307/2013 and No 1308/2013 delineate sativa hemp by establishing the limit of THC in the field allowed (0.3% from 1 January 2023) andintroduced a common market organisation for flax and hemp.
Consequently, the contested decree resulted in an infringement of EU law in that it imposed a de facto quantitative restriction on the common market that was not justified by scientifically relevant public health protection requirements.
The TAR Lazio examined this complex regulatory framework, drawing on both the principles expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Kanavape case and the judgment of the French Conseil d'Etat No 444487 of 30 December 2023 stating that the “[e]xamination of these rules, however, does not reveal any distinction between the parts of the hemp plant that are freely cultivated, within the meaning of the aforementioned Law No 242/2016, which can be used for the purposes established by that law. The sectoral discipline of international and EU matrix clarifies, in fact, that the discretional criterion for establishing the free cultivation of hemp lies in the type of plant, considered in its entirety”.
In essence, the distinction between cannabis drugs, governed by Presidential Decree No 309/1990, and industrial hemp governed by Law No 242/2016, lies in the origin of certified varieties registered in the Common Catalogue of Agricultural Plant Species.
Judgments No 2313 and No 2316 dated 14 February 2023 set a fundamental precedent for Italy in that they recognise the prevalence of EU law over national law and, as a result, sanction the lawfulness of the use of the entire hemp sativa plant as a medicinal plant, thus adding a very important use to the “agricultural” uses provided for by Law No 242/2016.
These rulings have been challenged by the competent Ministries before the Council of State. Although a hearing has not yet been set for discussion, one is expected later in 2024.
The Possible Scenario
If the Italian Council of State confirms the judgments of the TAR Lazio, it could indeed herald a transformative period for the hemp industry in Italy. This would affirm the full legality of cultivating, processing, and using the entire hemp plant, recognising it both as an agricultural product under Law No 242/2016 and as a medicinal plant.
Under this new legal framework, farmers would be permitted to cultivate the entire Cannabis sativa plant, with the only requirement being compliance with Good Agricultural Collecting Practice (GACP). Farmers may also carry out all the initial processing operations of the cultivated hemp that are indispensable for production needs. These consist of washing, defoliation, sorting, grading, hulling, drying, cutting and selection, pulverisation of the dried herbs, and obtaining essential oils from fresh plants directly on the farm, if the latter activity needs to be done with freshly harvested plants and plant parts. Also included in the initial processing stage, which is indispensable for production needs, is any activity aimed at stabilising and preserving the product intended for the subsequent stages of the supply chain.
The hemp thus obtained and processed may therefore be utilised both for the purposes envisioned by Article 2(2) of Law No 242/2016, and supplied to qualified entities for the handling and sale of medicinal plants according to the intended use.
Particularly noteworthy is the possibility of using hemp as a medicinal plant. Pharmacists and herbalists could potentially prepare non-prepackaged, loose, extemporaneous food preparations containing whole hemp plants, extracts, or mixtures thereof.
This could lead to the possibility of using the hemp plant for human consumption as an officinal plant, thus introducing a subject that inevitably intersects with pending cases concerning food hemp: the relationship with novel foods legislation on one hand, and the limits of THC in foodstuffs as a contaminant on the other. In this writer’s opinion, this represents the main challenge the sector must face in the near future in order to obtain full legitimacy and mainstream affirmation, also from a social and mass-market perspective.
The safety of the product must, in fact, be assessed on the finished product itself based on the applicable regulations in the sector, not prejudged by preemptively prohibiting the use of certain plant parts. As affirmed by judgments from the CJEU, the French Council of State, and the Italian Administrative Court, such blanket bans contravene EU law by undermining the common market organisation without grounding in proven scientific requirements, relying solely on a generic precautionary principle and public health protection rationale.
Under Regulation (EU) No 915/2023, which updates and replaces Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, THC is categorised as a contaminant. However, current regulations specify THC limits only for seeds and their derivatives, leaving a regulatory gap for other plant parts and extracts. In this regard, the application proposed by the EIHA Project (the consortium promoted by the EIHA) for the recognition of full-spectrum hemp extracts as novel foods represents a potential breakthrough.
This application, based on an innovative scientific study, could be a valid tool to demonstrate that, like many herbal preparations (eg, alcoholic tinctures or extracts of various medicinal plants) or food supplements, what matters is not the absolute threshold of the presence of the contaminant, but rather the daily intake dosage.
Another extremely pertinent issue among the potential scenarios relates to the free movement of goods within the European common market.
The aforementioned judgments have, in fact, reaffirmed that national laws restricting the use of whole plants or the sale of CBD products legally produced in a member state constitute a quantitative restriction on the common market, and are therefore unlawful unless grounded in proven scientific necessity. However, when scrutinised, the evidence put forth by member states that had adopted restrictive regulations proved only to rely on generic, unproven public health protection rationales and a broad precautionary principle.
These measures, together with the political choice of some member states (eg, the Czech Republic and Poland) have led to a scenario in which CBD products are lawfully produced in certain countries while banned in others. This has precipitated a clear distortion of the common market and competitive landscape, as many member states cannot produce certain products or cultivate and utilise the whole plant, yet must contend with imports of those very same products from states where they are legally produced.
This creates a risk of a two-speed Europe that must be averted. To remedy this, the relevant Directorates General of the EU Commission (DG AGRI, DG SANTE and DG GROWTH) are working on their respective dossiers on food, cosmetics and animal feed in order to find a unified solution at the European level and avoid the above-mentioned risk.
The aim is to reinforce the European common market and safeguard it from imports of goods from non-EU countries, which possess vast resources posing a formidable threat to the European market at the detriment of producers within the member states.
It is therefore imperative that the sector operates by harmonising the legal sphere with scientific research in order to uphold a new conception of sustainability, yielding innovative products for consumers characterised by superior quality and an inextricable link to their territory of origin.
It would be desirable for hemp to follow in the footsteps of wine by cultivating production specifications intrinsically tied to geographical provenance, developing genetics tailored to various latitudes, and establishing self-regulatory standards adeptly integrating and interpreting existing regulations. This would mirror the path forged by organic products in 1980s Italy, where self-regulation initially compensated for regulatory deficiencies before being enshrined into law.
In parallel, it is also prudent to explore further applications. The experience of some member states, such as Belgium and Luxembourg, demonstrates that hemp can also be included in inhalation products.
After all, this supplementary use appears to be one of the primary consumer demands (especially regarding CBD flowers), which, irrespective of the stated intended use (technical, collector’s, horticultural or ornamental), are in fact also utilised for inhalation as tobacco substitutes.
In Italy, adding inhalation as a recognised use for hemp could align with consumer preferences and expand the market. However, this should not become the sole recognised use for hemp but rather a complementary option alongside existing applications.
The inclusion of hemp as an inhalation product requires careful consideration of tax regulations. The Italian Customs and Monopolies Agency (ADM) would play a crucial role in overseeing the production and distribution chain. This oversight is essential not only to protect consumers but also to ensure that the state collects appropriate revenues from this new market segment. Moreover, tax regulations need to be fair and effective, reflecting the unique characteristics of the hemp sector, which is predominantly made up of small and medium-sized enterprises and features craftsmanship akin to that found in the wine or craft beer industries.
One potential solution could be to envisage a flat-rate system for artisanal hemp products intended for inhalation and, as far as marketing is concerned, apply by analogy the provisions for liquid inhalation products.
These proposals are still under discussion and evaluation within the supply chain committee established at the Ministry of Agriculture.
Palazzo S. Elisabetta
Via Giovanni Marradi n. 4
57126 Livorno
Italy
0586829092
0586829092
info@studiolegalebulleri.eu www.studiolegalebulleri.eu