The article published this Thursday (21) by Il Quotidiano Giuridico, signed by Cesare TrapuzzanoThe advisor to the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation was received with equanimity by lawyers specializing in Italian citizenship interviewed by Italianismo.
The text, entitled “It is legitimate to exclude Italian citizenship for those born abroad who hold another citizenship.The article, in a free translation, analyzes Constitutional Court Ruling No. 63/2026, which deemed legitimate the new restriction on the recognition of Italian citizenship for descendants born abroad and holders of another citizenship. However, in the lawyers' assessment, the article itself does not add any relevant legal novelty.
"He basically reproduces the Constitutional Court's decision. There is no original critical elaboration or new argument," summarized one of the lawyers interviewed for this report.
Still, the timing of the publication drew attention.
Trapuzzano is a member of the Court of Cassation itself, the very court that will judge the issue of the retroactive application of the Tajani Decree in the coming weeks, in the United Sections. The hearing took place on April 14. and the sentence is awaited.
"It's not an irrelevant text because of its content. It's relevant because of who wrote it and the moment it appeared," said another expert.
The central point of the Constitutional Court's decision, reiterated in the article, is the thesis of the so-called "original preclusion".
According to this interpretation, the Tajani Decree did not revoke citizenships already acquired. The new law only stipulated that certain descendants born abroad never acquired Italian citizenship.
That is precisely where the main criticism from experts lies.
“The transmission of citizenship occurs at birth, iure sanguinis, not at the moment of recognition. You don't talk about preclusion for someone who hasn't exercised a right that, in fact, is acquired by a legal fact, which is the fact of birth. So there is no preclusion. If the process were constitutive of the recognition of citizenship, okay, but it isn't,” stated one of the lawyers.
In practice, legal experts say, the Constitutional Court had to alter the traditional logic of the system to uphold the constitutionality of the reform.
“If citizenship is acquired at birth, preventing its recognition later is essentially equivalent to taking away a right that already existed. To avoid this problem, the Court began treating these people as if they had never acquired citizenship,” stated another lawyer.
The assessment among the lawyers consulted is that this construction represents a significant break with decades of Italian jurisprudence on the matter. jure sanguinis.
At the same time, experts acknowledge that the Constitutional Court did not act without legal rationale.
The decision incorporates the principle of so-called "effective citizenship," a concept that has been gaining ground in European debates about nationality and the real link between citizen and State.
In the ruling itself, the Court states that the rule seeks to promote "a reasonable balance between the principle of the effectiveness of citizenship and the legitimate expectations of the recipients."
According to one of the lawyers interviewed by Italianismo, the problem is not necessarily in the discussion about future limits for indefinite transmissions of citizenship, but in the attempt to apply this change in understanding retroactively.
"The State can discuss new criteria for the future. The delicate point is trying to legally redefine situations that, for decades, have been treated as pre-existing rights."
Despite the media attention, experts believe that Trapuzzano's article, on its own, should not directly influence the judgment of the United Sections.
"The Cassation Chamber does not decide based on articles from legal journals. But the text can be interpreted as a sign of the institutional environment that is forming within the higher courts," stated one of the interviewees.
Behind the scenes of the Italian legal debate, the perception is that the "original preclusion" thesis has become the main tool used to uphold the constitutional validity of the Tajani Decree without explicitly admitting a retroactive withdrawal of citizenship.
Excerpts from the published analysis:
“…it is considered not to have more acquisition of the Italian cittadinanza that is native to all'estero anche prima della data di entrata in vigore di tale articolo and is in possession of another cittadinanza…”
(“…anyone born abroad, including before the entry into force of this article, and who possesses another citizenship, is considered never to have acquired Italian citizenship…”)
“…l'art. 3-bis configures a preclusion originary all'acquisto della cittadinanza italiana per gli stranieri nati all'estero, e non una revoke.”
(“…Article 3-bis establishes an original preclusion to the acquisition of Italian citizenship for foreigners born abroad, and not a revocation.”)
“…the censored norm carries out a non-irragonevole support for the principle of effettività della cittadinanza and the affidamento dei recipient…”
(“…the challenged rule strikes a reasonable balance between the principle of effective citizenship and the legitimate expectations of those to whom it is addressed…”)
“…this does not affect your consolidated position, its status and its diritti di chi è già stato riconosciuto come Italian city…”
(“…it does not affect established positions, that is, the status and rights of those who have already been recognized as Italian citizens…”)
“…il DL n. 36 dated 2025 has a 'corrective' character rispetto all the previous discipline and contains 'compensative' misure…”
(“…Decree-Law No. 36 of 2025 has a 'corrective' character in relation to the previous regulations and contains 'compensatory' measures…”)
Italianismo had access to the article published by Il Quotidiano GiuridicoHowever, authorization is awaited for any eventual full reproduction of the content, which is protected by copyright.
FOLLOW ITALIANISM
