The referendum of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a sort of Advocate General, Vincenzo ValentiniHe was emphatic in pointing out the risks of Decree-Law 36/25, known as the Tajani Decree, which altered the rules for Italian citizenship last year.
During a seminar held this Friday (6)In his speech at the National Forensic Council in Rome, Valentini stated that the new legislation could contradict European law and compromise constitutional principles.
“Restricting citizenship in order to maintain a stronger, more effective link with the country may even be a legitimate objective. But this needs to pass the test of proportionality,” said the legal expert.
According to him, although the member states of the European Union have the power to define who their citizens are, these decisions cannot ignore their effects in the European context.
“It’s not about the European Union deciding who is an Italian citizen. It’s about ensuring that national legislation, when affecting European status, respects the fundamental principles of the Union,” he explained.
Criticisms of retroactivity
Valentini stated that the most critical point of the decree lies in the inflexible time limit, which requires those interested to have requested recognition of citizenship by 23:59 pm on the day before the rule comes into effect.
"We are facing a tacit revocation of previously acquired citizenship, and worse: without granting any reasonable timeframe for those affected to react," he stated.
He added: "It's as if the State is saying: you were never a citizen, even though you had all the required documents and met all the requirements until yesterday."
He also criticized the absence of a transition rule: "It is possible to carry out a structural reform, including with retroactive effects, but citizens need to have a proportional and reasonable timeframe to exercise their choice freely and consciously."
European law and citizenship
Valentini pointed out that Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union recognizes European citizenship for all nationals of the Member States. Therefore, any legislative change that modifies this status must follow common standards.
To justify his analysis, he cited the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, especially judgment X of 2021. According to him, the decision established mandatory criteria that must be observed by any State:
"It is necessary to guarantee a reasonable timeframe for citizens to seek protection, allow real access to the application process, and provide for the possibility of an individual proportionality review."
Legal structure under question.
Valentini was careful to avoid making definitive judgments about the constitutionality of the decree, but he made clear his concern about the way it was drafted.
"The problem is not whether the measure is legitimate in theory. It is whether it allows effective access to legal protection and whether it permits a proportional case-by-case assessment," he said.
In concluding his speech, the jurist pointed to the responsibility of the Constitutional Court in judging whether Decree-Law 36/25 is in accordance with Article 117 of the Italian Constitution, which mandates respect for international treaties and European Union law.
"I don't propose solutions. I propose questions. And that's what law thrives on: constant reflection on what is just and proportionate," he concluded.
The Constitutional Court hearing on the Tajani Decree is scheduled for the day March 11The decision could define the future of Italian citizenship by descent, with direct repercussions for millions of people of Italian descent worldwide.
FOLLOW-US
