The judgment on the validity of the Tajani Decree, which altered the rules for Italian citizenship by descent, It is scheduled for March 11, 2026.The rapporteur for the case at the Constitutional Court of Italy will be... John Pitruzzella, a legal expert who has argued in other cases that flaws in decree-laws contaminate the converting law.
O Italianism She consulted two lawyers specializing in Italian citizenship who are following the case. Both view the choice of Pitruzzella as rapporteur favorably and identify legal grounds that could support the argument that the decree is unconstitutional.
Roberta Aveline: "The illegitimacy is clear from the start"
The lawyer Roberta Aveline It is worth noting that, according to the rapporteur himself, the decree-law must meet three constitutional requirements: it must be extraordinary, urgent, and necessary.
“According to the rapporteur, in his book, the decree-law must respect three fundamental requirements: it must be extraordinary, urgent, and necessary, and its conversion into law does not eliminate the original flaw. In the case of the Tajani Decree, we understand that none of the requirements were observed, which leads us to expect that its unconstitutional illegitimacy will be declared from the outset,” Aveline states.
She adds that the content of the new legislation also presents substantive flaws: “The changes made to the law concerning Italian citizenship were promoted without observing principles dear to the legal system, such as the non-retroactivity of laws, as foreseen in…” art. 11 of the Preleggi...and the principle of equality, since it created subcategories of Italian citizens, generating widely discriminatory situations within families."
Maria Stella La Malfa: "Urgency is a pretext"
The lawyer Maria Stella La Malfa She questions the constitutional basis of the decree. According to her, the government misused the declaration of emergency.
"The declaration of a state of emergency clearly reveals itself"pretentious" (false)"The matter in question has been known for decades and did not arise suddenly, so no unpredictability or exceptionality can be claimed to justify resorting to the decree-law," he argues.
La Malfa also cites legislative precedents to reinforce that the issue has long been known to the State: “Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers No. 33/2014 had already extended deadlines, created fees, and redistributed cases among the courts. All this demonstrates that the regulation of the matter has been occurring in a progressive and ordinary manner.”
Regarding the rapporteurThe lawyer also expressed a positive opinion: “His selection as rapporteur proves to be particularly appropriate. I had the opportunity to have him as a professor in college and I can affirm that he is an extremely attentive and rigorous person.”
Despite the judge's history, La Malfa emphasizes the need for caution: “The fact that he has previously expressed his opinion on the issue of declaring urgency is undoubtedly a favorable element. Even so, it is necessary to remain cautious and be fully aware that each case has its own peculiarities and must be analyzed independently.”
The court's ruling is expected to be published in April 2026. It could impact all citizenship applications submitted after the new law comes into effect in March 2025.
The rapporteur and the impact of the decision.
Pitruzzella's name is noteworthy because, in previous Court decisions, he defended constitutional limits on the use of decree-laws. This understanding was reaffirmed in ruling 245 of 2022, which dealt with the conversion of a decree. “milleproroghe”.
Cristina Bertolino, a full professor of Public Law Institutions at the University of Turin, highlights this point in her analysis. "The genetic flaw in the decree-law extends to the conversion law; in other words, it is a procedural flaw that compromises the entire normative production process.
At the time, the Court concluded that Parliament cannot include provisions in the conversion law that are completely unrelated to the original content of the decree-law. When this occurs, there is a “vizio in procedendo, a formal defect that can lead to the invalidation of the standard.
The ruling highlighted that Article 77 of the Italian Constitution requires consistency between the original text of the decree and the amendments made during its conversion. The flaw at the outset, therefore, does not disappear with parliamentary approval and can taint the entire law.
Although the 2022 case did not involve Italian citizenship, the established principle may influence the judgment of the Tajani Decree. The text approved in 2025 was significantly altered during its passage, a fact questioned by legal experts and lawyers in the field.
✅ WHAT DOES SENTENCE 245/2022 SAY?
- The decree-law must respect the constitutional requirements of necessity and urgency (Article 77 of the Italian Constitution).
- The conversion law cannot contain content extraneous to the original decree.
- A flaw in the decree's origins does not disappear with parliamentary approval.
- When this happens, there is a "procedural defect" — a formal defect that compromises the entire standard, even after it became law.
✅ What the female lawyers are advocating
1. Roberta Aveline states that:
- The Tajani Decree did not meet the constitutional requirements of urgency, necessity, and exceptionality.
- The original flaw remains, even after being enacted into law — exactly what the ruling states.
- The law allegedly violated principles such as non-retroactivity and equality, reinforcing the argument of unconstitutionality.
2. Maria Stella La Malfa says that:
- The urgency cited by the government was pretentiousbecause the problem has been known for years.
- The matter should have been addressed through ordinary legislative procedures, not by decree—which reinforces the argument that there are no valid grounds for a decree-law.
- This aligns with the Court's understanding, which prohibits the misuse of the urgent procedure to alter relevant regulations without concrete justification.
FOLLOW-US
