Lorenzo D'Ascia, representative of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers to the State Attorney He responded point by point to the defense's arguments at the public hearing of the Italian Constitutional Court this Tuesday (9). The intervention was dedicated to issues raised orally by the private parties which, in the State's lawyer's assessment, go beyond what was decided by Judgment 63/2026.
Regarding the case of the minor presented by the lawyer Alfonso CelottoThe state representative argued that the legislation provides for a multi-level protection system, with compensatory measures that guarantee facilitated access to Italian citizenship without breaking up family unity. The provisions cited were Article 4, paragraph 1-bis, of Law 91/1992, Article 1, paragraph 1-ter, of Decree-Law 36/2025, and Articles 4 and 9 of the same Law 91/1992.
Ordinance 13.818 and the limits of the argument.
The state attorney also responded to the frequent use, throughout the hearing, of the recent Order 13.818 of the Superior Court of CassationAccording to him, the decision refers to a normative order different from that created by current legislation: "I find it difficult to believe that a decision by the Court of Cassation regarding the interpretation of a law that no longer exists should be used as a parameter to assess the constitutionality of a new law," said D'Ascia.
Regarding Ordinance 13.818, the State representative presented an argument in favor of his position. According to him, the decision confirms that judicial recourse was immediately available without restrictions: "A legal action is not subject to waiting lists." This would make the transitional rule, which only protected cases where legal proceedings were already underway or consular appointments had already been granted, proportionate.
Article 22 and unlimited jus sanguinis
Regarding Article 22 of the Italian Constitution, invoked by Celotto to defend the minor's case, the state's lawyer considered the defense's interpretation excessively broad: "I do not find acceptable the assertion that every decision by the legislature that does not make the loss of citizenship dependent on a voluntary choice by the individual is, in itself, due to political motives," he said.
According to the state representative, this interpretation would lead to the conclusion that unlimited jus sanguinis would, in practice, be an immutable constitutional norm. Article 22, he explained, was created to respond to the racial persecutions of the totalitarian regimes of the first half of the 20th century, a context historically distinct from the current debate.
In closing, the state attorney reiterated that the rule did not constitute a systemic and organic reform of citizenship law, but only the introduction of specific and unavoidable corrections. The organic reform, he said, is being processed separately in the Italian Senate under number... Senate Act 1450.
The Court did not issue a ruling during the session.
