The Constitutional Court of Italy published this Thursday (30) a Sentence 63/2026, detailing the conclusions of the hearing held on March 11, 2026. The document addresses the legitimacy of the restrictions on Italian citizenship iure sanguinis introduced by Decree-Law 36/2025, the infamous Tajani Decree.
Advertise with us!
The court acknowledged that the legislature has the power to intervene in the criteria for realizing the right to citizenship. However, the decision reaffirmed a fundamental principle: the “status civitatis” Citizenship is acquired at birth. It is not acquired through official recognition; rather, it is a status transmitted automatically by birth.
According to the Court, administrative or judicial recognition is "merely declaratory and not constitutive." This dual assertion creates what legal scholars call systemic tension, because if citizenship has existed from the outset, subsequent legislative changes should not extinguish the already established right.
The ruling was influenced by the technical limitations of the Turin Court's referral order. Because the initial challenge was restricted, the Court could not delve into broader aspects of the law's constitutionality. The focus now shifts to the Mantua Court's order, considered more in-depth and structural. The hearing will take place on June 9th, together with the Campobasso case.
Advertise with us!
At the request of Italianismo, lawyer Luigi Minari analyzed the subtlety of the decision. “What is it (the ruling) saying there? It is saying that the legislator has the power. It recognizes that citizenship status is acquired at birth. What the Constitutional Court is saying, and what seems somewhat incongruous, is that if someone has citizenship status at birth, if you change the way they can be recognized, you are affecting the right itself,” Minari states.
The lawyer explains that the legal battle is still open. “It’s not 100% lost yet. The legislator has the power to change the criteria for granting citizenship, but he recognizes that a citizen is born. If the change in criteria affects the right itself, the principle of constitutionality and non-retroactivity is violated,” he emphasizes.
The difference between the approaches of Turin and Mantua is crucial. While Turin focused on formal aspects, Mantua tackles the practical effects of the legislation. "The judge in Mantua doesn't dwell on the procedural aspect itself; he focuses on the concrete effects of this legislation in relation to those who have already been born and those who already have Italian citizenship," explains Minari.
Mantua's argument cites Article 22 of the Italian Constitution, which prohibits the deprivation of citizenship for political reasons. "If the legislature alters the criteria, even if it is not unconstitutional, it can affect the very right that the Court recognizes, which is citizenship transmitted at birth," the lawyer emphasizes.
The scenario now depends on the maturation of these arguments in the higher courts, especially the Court of Cassation. The expectation is that jurisprudence will evolve to protect the "legitimate trust" of those who already had an expectation of the right under the previous normative framework.
The legal battle is expected to extend until the judicial recess in August, when the sentence from the June 9th hearing should be published. For the descendants, the focus remains on proving that the legislature can change rules for the future, but cannot retroactively remove a right that the Court itself recognizes as acquired at birth.
Reaction from experts and legal insiders
The Constitutional Court's decision It generated strong repercussions among legal experts and practitioners..
One of the most widespread interpretations maintains that "those who did not obtain recognition did not possess the status of citizen, but only an expectation of a right." Along these lines, "the modifications would not be unconstitutional."
At the same time, there are doubts about the consistency of the decision. "If citizenship is born with the individual, how can recognition be limited without affecting the right itself?", one analysis questions.
The perception of incongruity arises frequently. "If you tamper with the way in which a right can be recognized, you end up affecting the right itself."
There is also disagreement about the scope of the decision. "All is not lost" and "the matter is not yet closed" are recurring assessments in legal circles.
Advertise with us!
Another point of debate is retroactivity. Some experts believe that "the Court treated it as if there had been no withdrawal of rights," while others assess that "in practice, the effect may be equivalent."
The expectation now turns to the next judicial decisions. "The game is still 0-0" and "the matter will still be decided in the higher courts."
The scenario is described as open. "There is still room for discussion" and "understanding can evolve" summarize the mood among legal experts after the publication of the sentence.
The sentence can be read here: Judgment 63/2026
FOLLOW-US
