Lawyer Marco Mellone opened his oral argument at the Italian Constitutional Court on Tuesday (9), stating that he was “perhaps among the first lawyers in the world called upon to make 15 judges change their minds on a matter already decided 30 or 40 days ago”. The reference is to Sentence 63/2026, published after the hearing of March 11, which dismissed the questions of unconstitutionality regarding the same rule under discussion in this session.
The lawyer informed that he has already filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rightswhich guarantees the right to a fair trial. The basis, according to him, was the Court's practice of announcing decisions by press release before the formal publication of the judgment: "Judges speak through their sentences, not through press releases."
Retroactivity and impossible conditions
Mellone argued that the challenged legislation retroactively created conditions that no one can meet: having been born in Italy or having a father or grandfather who was exclusively Italian. "Tell me who decides their own place of birth. Tell me who decides the nationality of their father or grandfather. These are impossible conditions to satisfy," he stated.
The lawyer also challenged the Court's interpretation of when Italian citizenship is acquired. In Judgment 63/2026, the Court allegedly reclassified the child of an Italian citizen born abroad as someone who only acquires citizenship through formal administrative recognition, and not from birth. According to Mellone, this contradicts 160 years of doctrine and jurisprudence: “Both those born in Italy and those born abroad go through an administrative registration process. There is no difference.”
Request for suspension and new fact
The defense filed two formal requests on the eve of the hearing. The first requests the suspension of the trial until the Supreme Court of Cassation, meeting in Joint Sections, rules on the scope of application of the challenged rule. Resources in the United Sections were discussed on April 14. And the decision is expected in the coming weeks.
The second request introduces a new fact: one of Mellone's clients received, in the week prior to the hearing, a job offer from a European Union member country, conditional upon access to EU territory. The lawyer used this case to refute the assertion in Judgment 63/2026 that the issue was "virtual" due to the absence of concrete links with the European Union.
In closing, Mellone requested that the Court's president record in the minutes the defense's reservation of right to appeal to the ECHR based on Article 8 of the European Convention, which protects the right to respect for private life, should the decision to be rendered violate the fundamental rights of its clients.
The Constitutional Court did not issue a ruling during the hearing. There is no set deadline for the final decision.
FOLLOW ITALIANISM
