30/04/2026
โ๏ธ ๐๐ง๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐ง๐๐ญ๐๐ก๐ฆ๐๐๐ฃ: ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ง๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ข๐จ๐ฅ๐ง ๐๐๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐, ๐๐จ๐ง ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ฆ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐ข๐ฆ๐๐
The Italian Constitutional Court, with judgment no. 63/2026 filed on April 30, has rejected the questions of constitutionality raised by the Court of Turin regarding Article 3-bis of Law no. 91/1992 โ the rule introduced by Decree-Law no. 36/2025 that drastically restricted access to recognition of Italian citizenship by descent.
๐ ๐ช๐๐๐ง ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐จ๐ฅ๐ง ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
The Court found the legislator's balancing of interests ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐ป๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ. Three key points:
โช๏ธ Article 3-bis is not a "revocation" of citizenship, but an "original preclusion of acquisition" with retroactive effect;
โช๏ธ the reform would respond to the constitutional need for a ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ธ between citizen and the Republic;
โช๏ธ the legitimate expectations of those who had not taken action by March 27, 2025 would be less substantial than those who had already filed an application.
๐ ๐๐จ๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐: ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ฆ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐ข๐ฆ๐๐
The judgment decided only the questions raised by the Court of Turin, on a narrow range of constitutional parameters. ๐ง๐๐ผ ๐ณ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐น ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ are still pending before the Court:
๐๏ธ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐๐ฎ (order no. 4/2026) and ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฎ๐บ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐๐ผ (orders nos. 40 and 41/2026), which raised ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ issues not yet examined:
โ
violation of ๐๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฎ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐. ("No one may be deprived, for political reasons, of citizenship"): a particularly solid front, recalling the consolidated case law of the Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation on the permanent, indisposable and imprescriptible nature of the status of citizen;
โ
violation of ๐๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฐ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐. for the absence of a reasonable time limit to exercise the right;
โ
violation of ๐๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ๐ ๐ณ๐ฎ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ณ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐.: the matter of citizenship, affecting the electoral body, would be covered by the reservation of plenary assembly and could not be regulated by decree-law;
โ
violation of ๐๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ๐ ๐ญ, ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฑ๐ด ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐.: retroactively modifying the criteria for citizenship means retroactively modifying the subjective basis of popular sovereignty.
๐ฅ ๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ฃ๐๐ก๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ง ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐จ๐ฅ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ฆ๐๐๐: ๐ง๐๐ "๐๐ฃ๐ฃ๐ข๐๐ก๐ง๐ ๐๐ก๐ง ๐๐. ๐ฃ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ง๐๐๐ง๐๐" ๐๐๐ฆ๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ฌ
This is one of the most important points of the entire judgment, and deserves to be clearly understood by those who are now excluded from recognition.
The Constitutional Court, at point 9.1 of its reasoning, expressly wrote:
๐ ยซThe question relating to the differentiation between those who received the appointment and those who initiated the citizenship recognition procedure but did not receive the appointment by 11:59 PM on March 27, 2025, remains unprejudiced (as it is extraneous to the proceedings before the referring court and therefore not raised by it).ยป
When the Court uses the formula ๐ง๐๐ ๐ค๐จ๐๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ข๐ก "๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐จ๐ก๐ฃ๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐๐๐๐๐", it is no accident. In the technical language of Italian constitutional law, this formula ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ ๐ฎ ๐พ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ผ๐๐๐น๐ ๐น๐ฒ๐ณ๐ ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฑ: it remains open ground, and if properly submitted in a future case, it will have to be examined on the merits.
โ ๐ช๐๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐๐ฆ ๐ง๐๐๐ฆ ๐ ๐๐๐ก ๐๐ก ๐๐ข๐ก๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ ๐ฆ?
Article 3-bis, paragraph 1, letter a-bis), saves those who by March 27, 2025 had ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ถ๐ป๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ communicated by the competent office. But thousands of people, especially in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, find themselves in this situation:
โช๏ธ they had ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ months or years earlier, with all possible steps (registration on Prenot@mi, dossier submitted, documented contacts with the consulate, fees paid);
โช๏ธ they were ๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ถ๐ป๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ that depended exclusively on the timeframes โ notoriously very long โ of the consular administration;
โช๏ธ they did NOT materially receive the appointment by midnight on March 27, 2025, ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฏ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐บ, but exclusively to the efficiency of the public administration.
โ๏ธ ๐ช๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐๐๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฃ๐๐ก๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ง๐๐ก๐ง๐๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ข๐๐๐
The fate of the right to citizenship, for this category of subjects, depends on a circumstance ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐น: the scheduling of the appointment by the consulate. This is exactly the type of disparity that constitutional case law consistently strikes down.
In its consolidated case law, the Constitutional Court has already declared unconstitutional rules that included among the obstacles to the recognition of citizenship circumstances not attributable to the interested party (see judgment no. 195/2022, on the death of the spouse during procedural deadlines). The logic is identical: ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐น๐ผ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฎ ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฏ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐.
The argument is even stronger considering the Court's own reasoning: those who did not obtain the appointment but initiated the procedure ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ. They acted exactly like those who obtained the appointment. It was the administration that did not respond in time.
๐ฏ ๐ช๐๐๐ง ๐ง๐๐๐ฆ ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ก๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐ฅ ๐ง๐๐ข๐ฆ๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐๐๐ฅ๐ก๐๐
Those who have ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ฐ๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ of having initiated the procedure before March 28, 2025, Prenot@mi registration, emails to the consulate, dossiers submitted, registered letters, fees paid, files entrusted to legal aid offices or law firms with certain dates, can take judicial action, asking the judge to raise a new question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 3-bis, paragraph 1, letter a-bis), for violation of Article 3 Const. under the specific profile of this disparity.
The Constitutional Court, having already declared the question "unprejudiced," has implicitly signaled that the issue ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฒ๐
๐ฎ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป and will have to be decided when properly submitted.
๐ข ๐ ๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ ๐ง๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ฉ๐๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ก๐๐๐ฌ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ: ๐๐ช๐๐๐ง๐๐ก๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ง๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ข๐จ๐ฅ๐ง'๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ก ๐ข๐ก ๐ง๐๐ ๐ค๐จ๐๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ข๐ก๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐จ๐ฅ๐ง ๐ข๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ข๐๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ข
The Campobasso order does not only raise abstract questions of constitutionality. ๐๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ด๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐๐ฏ๐ท๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ whose concrete position presents distinctive features that may warrant ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป. ๐๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ด๐ผ๐ฟ๐, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐๐ต ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต ๐ฎ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐: the referring court itself has ruled out the possibility of a constitutionally compliant interpretation due to the literal clarity of the rule, and has therefore referred the matter to the Constitutional Court.
๐ฉโ๐ฆฑ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ก๐ง๐ฆ ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ฅ๐-๐ญ๐ต๐ฐ๐ด ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ (๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐บ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐๐ผ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ)
The case examined by the Court of Campobasso is particularly specific and deserves careful attention. These are subjects whose iure sanguinis transmission line had apparently been ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐๐ฝ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ due to the marriage of a female ascendant with a foreign citizen, pursuant to Article 10 of Law no. 555/1912, before the entry into force of the 1948 Constitution.
๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐ง๐ข๐ฅ๐๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ง๐๐ซ๐ง
This is the classic situation that, for decades, precluded recognition of Italian citizenship to descendants through the maternal line. The situation changed thanks to two fundamental rulings:
โช๏ธ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ด๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ป๐ผ. ๐ฏ๐ฌ/๐ญ๐ต๐ด๐ฏ, which declared the unconstitutionality of gender discrimination in citizenship rules;
โช๏ธ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฎ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, ๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐, ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ด๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ป๐ผ. ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฒ/๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ต, which affirmed the principle that status civitatis is permanent, imprescriptible, and justiciable at any time, with continuing effect even for unlawful deprivations occurring before the Constitution.
From that moment, thousands of descendants through the pre-1948 female line have been able to have their right to citizenship recognized, on the basis of a jurisprudential path that gave concrete implementation to a ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐.
โ๏ธ ๐ช๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐๐ ๐ฏ-๐๐๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ฃ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ง๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐๐๐ฅ๐ก๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ฅ ๐ง๐๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ
Descendants through the pre-1948 female line are not subjects who acquire citizenship thanks to Article 3-bis or thanks to Law no. 91/1992 in the ordinary way. They are subjects ๐ต๐ผ๐น๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ thanks to a previous declaration of unconstitutionality that retroactively removed a discriminatory rule.
Article 3-bis, applied retroactively to these subjects, ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ of that earlier declaration of unconstitutionality. It is as if the legislator of 2025 were saying: "Gender discrimination of 1912 was unconstitutional, but its effects remain crystallized today for those who did not act in time."
The Court of Campobasso has expressly excluded the possibility of a constitutionally compliant interpretation and has referred the matter to the Constitutional Court. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐'๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ต๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฟ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด will be decisive in defining the constitutional protection available to this category of descendants.
๐ฌ ๐๐ก ๐๐ข๐ก๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ก
Judgment No. 63/2026 represents a significant turning point, though it does not constitute a definitive resolution of the matter. The issues raised by the Courts of Mantua and Campobasso remain pending and continue to require judicial consideration. Moreover, the Constitutional Court itself has expressly left specific avenues open, indicating that further interpretative developments are still possible.
Hope is not closed. It has become more technical, more targeted, but it remains alive.
