DPCM no. 84/2026, implementing Art. 1, paragraphs 857 and 858, of Law no. 207/2024, introduces specific obligations for companies, entities, bodies, and foundations that have received public grants qualifying as “significant in nature.” In particular, Art. 2 of the DPCM provides for the obligation of the interested parties to appoint boards of auditors or statutory auditors, including in a sole auditor form, if such bodies are not already present. These same bodies are entrusted with the task of verifying that the public grants received have been used in compliance with the purposes for which they were granted, or that they have effectively allowed for the implementation of the planned projects. The decree also establishes that the findings of the audits must be transmitted to the Ministry of Economy and Finance by means of a specific report, to be sent by April 30 of the year following that in which the significant grants were disbursed.
Critical issues of the first application
The regulation presents, however, several profiles of uncertainty in the first application phase. The decree in question was published in the Official Gazette only on May 20, 2026, and will enter into force on June 4, 2026, without providing for transitional provisions.
The first problematic aspect concerns the deadline by which subjects who do not already have a control body must proceed with the relative appointment. On this point, two possible solutions have been proposed: the appointment should take place on the occasion of the approval of the financial statements for the financial year in which the significant grant was received or must be considered received, or, the control body should be appointed within thirty days of the disbursement of the significant grant.
The issue assumes particular importance since the regulation applies to significant grants received starting from January 1, 2025. For companies that have already approved the financial statements for the financial year ended December 31, 2025, within the ordinary term of one hundred and twenty days, which expired on April 30, 2026, the appointment during the shareholders’ meeting would now be precluded. It could instead still be possible for companies that, where the requirements are met, avail themselves of the longer term of one hundred and eighty days provided for by Art. 2364, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, expiring on June 29, 2026.
If the different approach of the thirty-day deadline were adopted, for significant public grants received between January 1, 2025, and June 4, 2026, it could be hypothesized that the term runs from the entry into force of the DPCM, the moment in which the application requirement of the obligation is definitively identified.
Doubts on the submission of the first report
Further uncertainties concern the deadline for the transmission of the first report to the MEF. For grants received in 2025, the deadline of April 30, 2026, would have already expired before the entry into force of the DPCM. This deadline therefore does not appear usable for the first report, both because as of April 30, 2026, the implementing provisions necessary to identify the relevant grants were not yet operational, and because instructions on the electronic transmission methods are still missing.
The application and operational methods must in fact be defined by a subsequent act of the MEF, to be issued within ninety days of the entry into force of the DPCM, and therefore by the beginning of September 2026. In this context, for significant grants received in 2025, two operational solutions can be envisaged:
- sending the report as soon as it is practically possible, after the issuance of the ministerial instructions, or
- sending a single report referring to both the grants received in 2025 and those possibly received in 2026, by the subsequent deadline of April 30, 2027.
The lack of transitional regulations and the current absence of operational instructions from the MEF make the first application of the new regulation particularly delicate. It follows that, in any evaluations related to the granting of further public subsidies, the objective difficulties deriving from the temporal misalignment between the commencement of the regulation, the publication of the DPCM, the entry into force of the decree, and the future adoption of the application instructions should be considered.