The court in Palermo, Sicily, issued the first known negative ruling since the new rules imposed by the Italian government came into effect. The decision, signed by temporary judge Carmela Caranna on February 7, 2026, applied the controversial Tajani Decree of March 2025 to reject the recognition of citizenship for a family of descendants.
Unlike other courts, such as those in Rome and Caltanissetta, for example, which chose to suspend proceedings and await the Constitutional Court's decision, the Sicilian judge decided on immediate dismissal. The Constitutional Court has hearing scheduled for March 11th to assess the validity of the new rules.
Palermo's stance contrasts with the so-called legal common sense applied in other courts. By suspending the decisions, judges avoid financial and procedural losses for the applicants, since a possible declaration of unconstitutionality of the new law would force families to initiate new appeals, generating more expenses with court fees and legal fees.
Haste in judging cases
However, Palermo is not an isolated exception. The Genoa Court has also signaled that it will maintain the hearings scheduled for April. The understanding in Genoa is that the trials should follow the current text of the decree, regardless of the proximity of the decision from the higher court in Rome.
According to a document from Section XI of the Civil Code, obtained by ItalianismThe court determined that cases registered successively at 00:59 on March 27, 2025, should be decided "immediately." The document sets hearings for April 15, 2026, using the written note procedure to expedite the closing of cases.
Although the Constitutional Court has a hearing scheduled for March 11, it is technically unlikely that the full ruling and its reasoning will be known and published by the date set by Genoa.
The Palermo case
The case judged in Palermo involved descendants of an Italian citizen who emigrated to Argentina. The ruling granted the request only for one of the applicants who met the exceptions provided for in the new legislation, but denied the right to the other family members.
According to lawyers consulted by Italianismo, the rush to apply the rule before the Constitutional Court's verdict creates legal uncertainty. If the decree is overturned in March, the families affected by this negative ruling will have to bear the financial burden and the waiting time of an appeals process to reverse the decision.
COSMONAUT
February 22, 2026 at 14:50 am
With the end of the tariff imposed by the US court, I reiterate that the decree that instituted the law was an emergency national defense decree. This is the most plausible justification among the three that demonstrate its unconstitutionality.
COSMONAUT
February 22, 2026 at 14:53 am
It's astonishing how far behind Italy is. How come they don't have something similar to a direct action of unconstitutionality? It can't be like we've seen, where the analysis of constitutionality is done by the very house that will approve the law. Take a congress rigged by corruption and fascism, they'll tear your mother's backside apart in the name of evil.
COSMONAUT 2
February 22, 2026 at 14:53 am
It's astonishing how far behind Italy is. How come they don't have something similar to a direct action of unconstitutionality? It can't be like we've seen, where the analysis of constitutionality is done by the very house that will approve the law. Take a congress rigged by corruption and fascism, they'll tear your mother's backside apart in the name of evil.
Meres Barbosa
February 22, 2026 at 19:24 am
I'm also impressed by the Palermo police station. I've been married to an Italian for 3 years and we've been together for 14 years. We live in Palermo and to this day I don't have a permesso di soggiorno (residence permit). It's shameful in a country like Italy.