"It's a great day. It's a great result."
Thats how Marco Mellone, one of the lawyers in the case that brought the new Italian citizenship law back to the Constitutional Court, summarized the decision published this Thursday (23) to Italianismo.
Mellone makes no secret of his satisfaction.
For him, the Ordinance 147/2026 This represents a profound change from the position adopted by the Constitutional Court itself just three months earlier, when, in ruling 63/2026, the judges rejected the need to consult the Court of Justice of the European Union on the compatibility of the new law with European law.
Now they've done exactly that.
"It is one of the first times, perhaps, or very rare, that the Constitutional Court has actually said the opposite of what it had said just three months ago," Mellone told Italianismo.
The lawyer goes even further.
"I believe that with this decision, the Constitutional Court has clearly made a mea culpa," he said.
According to him, the Consultation "admitted that something was wrong with that decision."
"I submitted this request."
Mellone was an attorney for plaintiffs in one of the constitutional cases reviewed at the June 9 hearing.
He also stated that he expressly requested the Court to refer the matter to the European judges.
“I submitted a specific request to raise the issue before the European Court of Justice. In fact, I did so publicly at the hearing on June 9th,” he stated.
One of the elements used by the defense was the specific situation of one of their clients.
"One of my clients, who was involved in this specific case, even received a very important job offer to work in a European Union country. And that offer was conditional on him having European citizenship," he explained.
"So, clearly, he couldn't accept that job offer because of the new law."
For Mellone, this example demonstrated that the consequences of reform were not abstract.
There were European rights and personal projects that were concretely affected.
"The Constitutional Court, evidently, accepted this request, since it also involves relevant issues of European Union law," he stated.
"Behind these rules, there are lives."
The lawyer's satisfaction is directly related to the change that occurred between sentence 63 and the new decision.
In April, the Constitutional Court had rejected the referral.
“In ruling 63, the Constitutional Court expressly stated that it would not accept this request to, let's say, seek an opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union,” Mellone recalled.
Now, the situation is different.
"I am very pleased with the work done because, clearly, I managed to make the judges of the Constitutional Court understand that behind these rules are people's lives, with personal issues, programs, and projects, and that this law truly impacted people's lives."
He even mentions people "who had planned to live in Italy, to live in Europe, or who were already living here in Italy and in Europe."
Mellone believes that the June audience figures played a role in this change.
"The words, including the very direct and incisive ones, spoken at the hearing on June 9th had some effect," he stated.
And he described the comeback as exceptional:
"Such a sudden and significant change in the Constitutional Court's decision is something that very rarely, or indeed never, happens."
Where does Mellone see the problems with the new law?
When asked by Italianismo about what the most vulnerable point of Article 3-bis would be in light of European law, Mellone did not choose just one.
Retroactivity, loss of European citizenship, and lack of individual analysis, according to him, are interconnected.
"All of these elements are absolutely relevant," he replied.
The lawyer cites European case law to argue that a state cannot simply withdraw citizenship with automatic consequences for European status without assessing the person's specific situation.
"You must conduct an individual assessment and you must provide prior information, you must give a window of time for people to be informed, so that people can respect the new conditions."
And concludes:
"All of this was completely lacking in the Italian decree."
"Those conditions existed in the past."
Mellone also points to a specific problem with the Italian reform.
According to him, the legislator did not create new conditions that could be met from then on.
It created requirements linked to events that had already occurred.
"The legislator didn't say: in five years you must learn Italian, in five years you must live in Italy."
"The legislator said that you should have been born in Italy, you should have had a parent or grandparent with Italian citizenship."
Therefore, he argues:
"Those conditions existed in the past; it would be impossible for a citizen to meet those conditions today."
This will be one of the arguments that will now reach Luxembourg.
Mellone will request urgency.
The procedure at the Court of Justice of the European Union is usually not quick.
Mellone estimates that a decision could come in 2027, possibly by the end of the year.
But he intends to try to expedite the case.
"I'll say upfront that we will be submitting a request for urgent review to the European judges," he revealed.
The justification will be the number of people affected and the nature of the right in question.
"The situation is very urgent, that is, there are many people, thousands and thousands of people with pending cases; it's a fundamental right, and there are lives behind this right."
And he confirmed:
"I'll say upfront that I'm going to request an urgent review."
The first effect may appear in pending cases.
One of the most important questions now is what happens to the thousands of citizenship applications already underway in Italian courts.
Mellone believes that many judges should wait for Luxembourg.
"I believe that judges can and will suspend cases to obtain this, let's say, definitive response from the European Court of Justice, since it is an essential element for the national judge to then make a decision."
But he sees an even more important consequence.
"I am very confident that they will no longer deny pending cases, now that this pronouncement exists."
For Mellone, this is already "the first immediate positive effect".
"Now the judge knows that the new law may actually have a legal problem and might not be upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union."
This is, of course, a legal assessment by the lawyer. Ordinance 147 did not mandate the automatic suspension of all existing citizenship applications in Italy.
What if Luxembourg deems the law incompatible with European law?
On this point, Mellone is categorical.
"If the Court of Justice of the European Union establishes that the Italian decree is not in accordance with European Union law, all national judges, including all national authorities, including administrative ones, should no longer apply these rules."
According to him, there would be "an effect of not being applied immediately".
This does not formally mean erasing Law 74/2025 from the Italian legal system.
Mellone explains the difference:
"The law will formally remain in effect because it has not been declared unconstitutional by the Italian Constitutional Court, and only the Italian Constitutional Court has the power to remove a law from the Italian legal system."
But, in the event of incompatibility with European law, the practical result would be enormous:
"All Italian authorities will no longer be able to apply these new rules in specific cases and will therefore have to apply the previous rules."
And what about those who didn't file a lawsuit before March 28th?
Italianismo asked Mellone directly whether a possible favorable decision from the CGUE could also extend to people who did not file a request or action before the cut-off date of March 28, 2025.
The response was immediate.
"Yes, of course. Absolutely."
According to him, if Luxembourg considers the new law incompatible with European law due to the absence of a transition period, the deadline itself could lose its validity.
"This also applies to people who did not submit their application before March 28th."
And added:
"If the European Union, or the Court of Justice of the European Union, says that the new law is not in accordance with European Union law because it did not give people a window of time to comply with the new conditions, then of course this deadline of March 28th no longer makes sense."
According to Mellone's assessment:
"This deadline will no longer make sense, it will no longer exist."
It is a legal projection by the lawyer, dependent on the content of Luxembourg's future decision.
"Today, much more than yesterday, it makes sense to begin a process."
Another question dominating the groups of descendants since Thursday's decision is strategic: is it worthwhile to file a new lawsuit now, or would it be better to wait?
Mellone does not hesitate.
"Of course, today, much more than yesterday, it makes sense to start a process."
In his view, the Constitutional Court's own decision altered the scenario.
"The doubt raised by the Constitutional Court is a clear one, and legally we know that this new law clearly, in contrast, also violates European Union law."
Therefore, he states:
"Anyone starting a lawsuit today will be able to count on a likely positive decision from the Court of Justice."
Mellone further adds a strategic rationale related to a possible reaction from the Italian government.
"I don't know what the government's reaction will be now, but we mustn't forget that the government has the possibility of issuing a new decree at any time, including today."
Therefore, according to him, filing a lawsuit could also serve to consolidate a procedural position before any new measures are taken.
"It's a strategic issue. Whoever is going to start a process now also has this guarantee effect, so to speak, that if there is a reaction from the government, that reaction cannot apply to cases that have already been filed, including in court."
"The Constitutional Court has made a mea culpa."
Among all the statements made to Italianism, one of the strongest came when the conversation shifted to the Court of Cassation.
Mellone believes that the judges of the Court of Cassation will necessarily consider the new Ordinance 147.
"The judges of the Court of Cassation will certainly read this ruling, for sure. And it will also be very relevant to the Court of Cassation's decision."
It was then that he made his harshest assessment of the Consultation change:
"I believe that with this decision, the Constitutional Court has clearly made a mea culpa."
And he added:
"He admitted that something was wrong with that decision."
Mellone points out that the Cassation Court had been developing a different approach and believes that now there may be "room" for new conclusions favorable to recognition by right of blood (jure sanguinis).
"Now, I think the Court of Cassation will have the opportunity to give us other decisive elements to save the right to Italian citizenship by descent."
"I don't worry too much about the genuine link."
Another central point in the Italian defense of the reform is the so-called "genuine link," or effective bond between citizen and State.
The Constitutional Court itself used this idea to defend the rationality of the new legislation.
Mellone, however, shows no sign of concern.
"I don't worry too much about the genuine link."
According to him, the precedent from Malta, cited in this debate, is legally different from the Italian situation.
"When the Court of Justice used the genuine link, it was in the case of Malta, which we know has nothing to do with the Italian case."
According to the lawyer, even if Luxembourg recognizes the importance of a real link, this would not allow Italy to collectively presume that all descendants born abroad have lost that connection.
"We cannot say that all descendants of immigrants do not have a genuine link with Italian territory."
"It's impossible to say that today, it's impossible to make that kind of statement. And not even the Court of Justice can do it."
"Person by person"
Mellone believes that, at most, the European Court could require Italy to individually verify the existence of this link.
"Italian state, you should have done a test, for example, on each descendant who was born outside of Italy, before saying that this descendant had nothing to do with the Italian state."
But reject an automatic assumption:
"The Court of Justice cannot say: just because you were born outside of Italy, just because your father or grandfather were born outside of Italy, you don't have a Genuine Link."
Mellone defines the Court of Justice as "very focused on guaranteeing rights".
And it points precisely to the principle that, in his view, most benefits the descendants:
"She was the one who established the principle of ad hoc analysis, case by case, person by person."
"This is a principle that helps us a lot, because the Italians did exactly the opposite."
The final criticism is straightforward.
"He made a cut, a horizontal cut."
"It's a great day"
At the end of the conversation with Reginaldo Maia, a journalist from Italianismo, Mellone returned to the tone he had at the beginning of the interview.
The satisfaction of those who had publicly advocated for the referral back to the CGUE at the June hearing was evident.
"It's a great day, it's a great day."
And he concluded:
"It's a great result."
The European decision is still far off, and there is no guarantee about its outcome.
But for one of the lawyers who asked the Constitutional Court for precisely the path that has now been adopted, Thursday's assessment leaves no room for doubt.
The legal battle over Italian citizenship reform has moved out of Rome.
Now it will also be fought in Luxembourg.
Listen to the interview:
