31/07/2025
Here is a breakdown of the press release by the Italian Constitutional Court regarding the principle of acquiring Italian citizenship by descent (jure sanguinis)
1. The Core Issue: Unlimited Citizenship by Descent
Several Italian lower courts (from Bologna, Rome, Milan, and Florence) questioned the constitutionality of the law that allows for the recognition of Italian citizenship to descendants of Italian emigrants without any generational limit and without requiring any "effective link" (such as residency, language knowledge, or cultural ties) to Italy. They argued that this creates a situation where individuals with no real connection to the Italian community become citizens, which they felt might conflict with the constitutional concept of "the people" and with EU and international law principles.
2. The Court's Main Ruling: Inadmissibility on Procedural Grounds
The Constitutional Court did not rule on the merits of whether limiting citizenship by descent is a good idea. Instead, it declared the main challenges inadmissible. The key reason is based on the separation of powers.
• Legislative Discretion: The Court affirmed that defining the rules for citizenship is a matter for the Parliament (the legislator), which has "particularly broad discretion" in this area.
• The Court's Role is Not to Legislate: The Court stated it could not step in and create new rules itself. The lower courts were essentially asking the Constitutional Court to write new law by choosing from a wide range of complex and discretionary options (e.g., setting a generational cap, requiring a period of residence, mandating language tests). The Court deemed this a "manipulative judgment" that would overstep its constitutional role and enter the domain of political and legislative decision-making.
• Vague and Generic Challenges: The challenges were also dismissed because they were too broad and the proposed solutions too varied, making it impossible for the Court to issue a precise ruling without creating a new, complex legal framework from scratch.
3. The Ruling on "Unequal Treatment": Unfounded
The lower courts also argued that it was unfair (irragionevole disparità di trattamento) to grant citizenship so easily by descent while imposing strict requirements (like residency and language tests) for those acquiring it through other means, such as marriage.
The Court rejected this argument, stating that the situations are not comparable. Acquiring citizenship by descent (jure sanguinis) is based on a bloodline connection and is considered an "original" acquisition, whereas acquiring it by marriage is based on a different legal foundation. Since the situations are not "substantially identical," the different legal treatment is not considered unconstitutionally discriminatory.
4. The New Law (Decree-Law No. 36 of 2025)
Crucially, the Court acknowledged that while this case was pending, the Italian Parliament did pass a new law that places limits on citizenship by descent for future applicants. However, the Court explicitly stated that this new law does not apply to the cases that were before it, as those applications were filed under the old, unlimited regime. Therefore, the Court did not and could not rule on the constitutionality of this new law in this judgment.
Key Takeaway:
The Court has effectively upheld the status quo for all existing and past applications for citizenship jure sanguinis. The principle of unlimited transmission by descent remains valid for anyone whose case is based on the law as it stood before the recent legislative change (Decree-Law No. 36 of 2025). The Court has signaled that while it is Parliament’s right to change the law for the future, the Court itself will not retroactively impose limits. This provides legal certainty for those who have already applied or have a right under the previous framework.
