Italian Citizenship Legal Updates

On Tuesday, April 14, 2026, the United Sections of Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation (the Sezioni Unite of the Corte di Cassazione) held a public hearing on Italian citizenship by descent at the Aula Magna of the Palace of Cassation in Rome. According to the Associated Press, access to the courthouse was restricted and audiovisual recording by the press was prohibited. The AP, reporting via ClickOnDetroit and the Press Democrat, covered the hearing from outside the courthouse and by phone with named plaintiffs.

The hearing was originally scheduled for January 13, 2026 and was postponed to allow the court additional time to prepare, as reported by Corriere d'Italia on October 31, 2025.

The Sezioni Unite was asked to address two related legal questions: first, whether an Italian emigrant's naturalization in another country automatically stripped their minor children of Italian citizenship under Article 12 of Law 555/1912 — commonly called the "minor rule" or "Minor Issue" — and second, whether Law 74/2025 (the Decreto Tajani) applies retroactively to citizenship cases filed before March 28, 2025. According to reporting by Corriere d'Italia and ItalyGet, the court accepted attorney Marco Mellone's request to have the retroactivity question examined alongside the minor rule, broadening the scope of the ruling beyond the originally referred issue.

Three cases were joined for the hearing. Two are represented by attorney Marco Mellone (ricorsi 18354/2024 and 18357/2024, according to ItalyGet and Corriere d'Italia) and the third by attorney Monica Restanio. Attorney Graziella Cerulli is also named in AP reporting as counsel alongside Mellone.

The written decision is expected in June 2026. Attorney Marco Mellone filed a brief on May 1, 2026 arguing against retroactive application to pre-March 2025 applicants. No ruling has been published as of this date.

The March 2026 event is a different court, a different case, and it has already been decided. It is often conflated in public coverage with the pending Sezioni Unite hearing, but the two are distinct. Understanding the difference matters for understanding what is still open.

On March 11, 2026, Italy's Constitutional Court (the Corte Costituzionale, a separate court from the Corte di Cassazione) held a public hearing on the constitutional legitimacy of Article 3-bis of Law 74/2025 — the core of the Tajani Decree. According to reporting by Open Online and the Italian Citizenship Assistance writeup, the challenge had been referred to the Constitutional Court by the Tribunal of Turin on behalf of a group of eight Venezuelan descendants of Italian citizens.

The Turin Tribunal asked the Constitutional Court to assess whether Article 3-bis violated four constitutional principles: equality (Article 3 of the Italian Constitution), reasonableness, legal certainty, and Italy's international obligations. According to CNN's March 14, 2026 report, the challenge argued that the new rules “effectively outlaw dual citizenship for the diaspora.”

On March 12, 2026, the Constitutional Court announced its decision via press release. Per Open Online, IMI Daily, Boccadutri, and Mondaq's legal analysis, the Court rejected the challenges “in parte non fondate e in parte inammissibili” (“partly unfounded and partly inadmissible”), upholding the core of Law 74/2025 — including the two-generation cap and the March 27, 2025 application deadline. This is the ruling the Associated Press referenced when it wrote that “Italy's constitutional court ruled the new law valid last month.”

What the Constitutional Court ruling did NOT do: it did not resolve the specific ius superveniens question — whether Law 74/2025 reaches applications that were filed before March 28, 2025 and are still pending under the old rules. That question is the one now before the Sezioni Unite (Section 4). The Constitutional Court also did not address the minor rule under Law 555/1912 (Section 2), which is the second question before the Sezioni Unite.

Full written ruling: Sentenza 63/2026 (deposited April 30, 2026)

The full written ruling — Sentenza 63/2026 — was deposited by the Constitutional Court on April 30, 2026. This is the complete legal text of the decision announced via press release on March 12. The challenges were found either unfounded on the merits or procedurally inadmissible; Law 74/2025's restrictions remain fully in force. Two holdings are particularly significant for descendants tracking this case.

Non-acquisition, not revocation. The Court built its reasoning on the distinction between having an ancestral connection that could lead to Italian citizenship and having that connection formally recognized. Article 3-bis says affected persons are "è considerato non avere mai acquistato la cittadinanza italiana" — considered never to have acquired Italian citizenship. The Court read this as a deliberate legislative choice to establish an initial bar to acquisition, not to revoke an existing right. The Court noted that the article was placed in the section on acquisition, not in the sections on revocation or loss: "La nuova disposizione è chiara nel configurare una preclusione originaria all'acquisto della cittadinanza italiana per gli stranieri nati all'estero, e non una revoca" ("The new provision clearly establishes an initial bar to the acquisition of Italian citizenship for foreigners born abroad, rather than a revocation"). Without formal recognition, a person was not exercising any Italian citizen rights or duties, so the law closes off a possibility rather than removing a realized status.

Retroactivity upheld. The retroactivity was explicitly upheld. The Court found it constitutionally permissible to correct the 1912 law's unlimited descent chain retroactively, reasoning on two levels. On the public interest side: the 1912 framework was "unsuitable for achieving the goal of balancing the need to maintain a connection with emigrants (and their descendants) with that of preserving an effective bond between them and Italy" and created a pool of "potential Italian citizens" so large that even the Italian state cannot enumerate it — a forward-only fix would have left this problem entirely intact. On the reliance side: people whose status had not been formally recognized had weaker reliance interests than fully recognized citizens, and the corrective character of the law takes precedence over reliance — consistent with the Court's own earlier rulings (Judgments No. 182 of 2022 and No. 136 of 2022).

EU law and international treaty arguments dismissed. The Turin Tribunal's referral also challenged the law on EU citizenship grounds (Articles 9 TEU and 20 TFEU) and international treaty obligations (Article 15 UDHR on arbitrary deprivation of nationality; Article 3, Protocol 4 ECHR on the right to enter one's own country). The Court dismissed the EU law arguments outright, holding that EU citizenship rights only activate once national citizenship has been formally recognized — not before. The international treaty claims were declared inadmissible due to defective legal reasoning in the lower court's referral ordinance.

Existing provisions noted in proportionality analysis. In assessing overall proportionality, the Court noted existing provisions in Law 74/2025 and surrounding legislation that mitigate the reform's impact — these are features of the law itself, not court-ordered remedies: an extended deadline for minor-children declarations (now May 31, 2029, extended by Law 26/2026 before this ruling), new work visa pathways for Italian descendants with no generational limits, and a reduction of the naturalization residency period from three years to two.

What Sentenza 63/2026 explicitly left open. The Court expressly reserved the question of people who started the consular application process but did not receive a confirmed appointment by 23:59 on March 27, 2025. Whether they can be treated differently from those who never filed is a question this ruling did not decide. That gap may still be addressed in the Mantova or Campobasso hearings, or by the Sezioni Unite.

Earlier: Sentenza 142/2025 (a third, separate ruling)

A third Constitutional Court ruling — Sentenza 142/2025, decided June 24, 2025 and deposited July 31, 2025 — is often mentioned alongside the March 2026 ruling, but it addressed yet another different challenge. Per the Constitutional Court's own case summary and Boccadutri's explainer, Sentenza 142/2025 concerned the pre-Tajani framework itself. The Court declined to restrict citizenship by descent through its own ruling and clarified that the new 2025 rules do not apply to cases pending before March 28, 2025.

Neither Constitutional Court ruling resolved the ius superveniens question. And a fourth Constitutional Court hearing — scheduled for June 9, 2026 — will address a related challenge from the Tribunal of Mantova, specifically on the retroactivity of Article 3-bis. That hearing is still pending. See Section 6 for the full watch list.

Two court proceedings are still open (the Sezioni Unite written decision and the June 9 Mantova hearing), with Campobasso referrals also pending and a question explicitly reserved by Sentenza 63/2026. The story is not over.

• Cassazione First Section Ordinance 13818/2026 (deposited May 12, 2026) — pre-reform ruling, new ATQ principles. The First Civil Section of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione reinstated a Colombian family's iure sanguinis recognition (R.G. 1944/2025; presiding judge Maria Acierno). The family applied in 2022 — before Law 74/2025 — making this a pre-reform ruling. Two holdings are attracting legal attention: (1) the court twice describes citizenship as a right “existing from the moment of the holder's birth, permanent and imprescriptible” — language that contrasts with the Constitutional Court's Sentenza 63/2026 framing of iure sanguinis citizenship as precarious until formally recognized; (2) consular queue blockages alone are sufficient ATQ standing — no prior formally accepted application required. Per Avv. Michele Vitale (ItalyGet), the ruling does not hold that Law 74/2025 is unconstitutional or inapplicable to post-reform cases. Sources: ItalyGet analysis by Avv. Vitale; Insieme article (full 13-page ruling included).
• Naples Tribunale post-DL ATQ (May 14, 2026) — attorney reported, pending published source. Avv. Vito Renato Di Ruggiero (Studio Legale Di Ruggiero, Salerno) reported a successful citizenship recognition for a family whose descent exceeded the two-generation limit set by Law 74/2025. The petition was filed after March 27, 2025. The Tribunale di Napoli held that a letter sent to the competent consulate requesting recognition before the deadline — in the absence of a formal appointment due to well-documented consular dysfunction — was sufficient to assert rights under the pre-reform regime. This ruling is based on the attorney's own published statement; a citable news article is pending and this entry will be updated when one is available.
• The Sezioni Unite written decision (expected June 2026). The expanded panel's ruling is expected in June 2026. Attorney Marco Mellone filed a brief on May 1, 2026 arguing that Law 74/2025 should not apply retroactively to applicants who had already begun the consular process before March 28, 2025. When the decision is published, this page will be updated with a dated changelog entry and a plain-English summary of what the court held on both the minor rule and the ius superveniensquestion. Note that Sentenza 63/2026 (the Constitutional Court's full ruling deposited April 30) addressed constitutional validity, not the interpretation questions before the Sezioni Unite — both proceedings remain independent.
• The June 9, 2026 Constitutional Court hearing — now expanded to include Mantova and both Campobasso referrals. The Constitutional Court originally scheduled June 9, 2026 for Ordinanza 4/2026 from the Tribunal of Mantova. It has since expanded the hearing to also include the two Campobasso referrals (ordinances n. 40 and 41/2026), consolidating all three into a single unified hearing. All three referrals challenge Article 3-bis of Law 74/2025, raising questions about whether citizenship by descent is a right existing at birth, whether Parliament can retroactively restrict already-existing claims, and whether the emergency decree procedure was properly used. The Mantova referral specifically focuses on the retroactivity of Article 3-bis against applications pending before March 28, 2025. Per Mondaq, a ruling is not typically issued on the same day as the hearing; the decision timeline after June 9 is not yet confirmed.
• The reserved question: applicants who started but did not receive a confirmed appointment by March 27, 2025. Sentenza 63/2026 explicitly left open whether applicants who began the consular process (e.g., submitted a Prenot@mi request or sent documentation) but did not receive a confirmed appointment by 23:59 on March 27, 2025 can be treated differently from those who never filed anything. This question was “estranea al giudizio a quo” (outside the case before this Court) and was not decided. It may be addressed by the Sezioni Unite, by the June 9 hearing (Mantova + Campobasso), or in future litigation.
• Ministry of Interior guidance. If the Sezioni Unite ruling changes the interpretation of Article 12(2), or if either Constitutional Court proceeding alters the applicability of Law 74/2025, the Italian Ministry of the Interior typically issues a circular updating consular and municipal practice. This page will link new circulars when they appear.