Italy has thousands of descendants waiting for a door to open to citizenship. On May 12, the Supreme Court opened a crack.
The Court recognized that descendants of Italians prevented from filing applications by the consular system itself have the right to resort to the Judiciary. decision no. 13818/2026 It reaffirms that citizenship by descent is inherent to a person, not granted by the State. But four experts consulted by Italianismo warn: euphoria, for now, is the worst advice.
What the decision says
The First Civil Section of the Court of Cassation, also known as the Supreme CourtThe ruling established that obstacles created by the public administration itself, such as the impossibility of scheduling a consular appointment, can be legally equated to a denial of recognition. This means that those who have been blocked by the system may have a legal interest in initiating proceedings, even without having filed an administrative request.
The decision came at a time of direct tension with Law No. 74/2025, the so-called Tajani Decree, and with the Judgment No. 63/2026 of the Court of Coninstitutional, which adopted a more restrictive stance on recognizing citizenship for descendants born abroad.
What the decision does not do
Attorney Luigi Minari is direct about the limits of the ruling. “The Supreme Court reinstated the right to access the Judiciary for certain categories of applicants who fall under the same factual situation as those applicants who were the appellants in the appeal that was the subject of the Court of Cassation's decision, because those applicants already had an appointment and had submitted the documentation,” he explains.
According to Minari, the return is not indiscriminate. “The right itself has not returned, at least not yet, indiscriminately. You have to demonstrate through documents that you had a legitimate expectation of the stabilization of the citizenship law itself and that you were already investing in the recognition of citizenship before the modification and were caught by surprise.”
Attorney Andrew Montone reinforces the restrictive interpretation. “The ordinance (sentence) The Cassation Act does not create any automatic approval of cases after Decree-Law 36. What the Court recognized was the existence of the interest. to act "In cases filed before the decree, even in the absence of an administrative response or obstacles to filing the request," he states.
Montone also points out that the battle is far from over. “Once the analysis of standing to sue is overcome, the judge will move on to the analysis of the merits, requiring complete proof of the genealogical line and consistent documentation. Poorly prepared lawsuits remain subject to rejection, and this has already happened in cases filed even before the decree,” he says.
Beware of miraculous promises.
Lawyer Flavia Di Pilla, from the Natitaliani association, acknowledges the weight of the reaffirmed principle, but calls for moderation. “The Cassation Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle of citizenship. However, at this moment caution is the rule. We are facing a conflict of jurisprudence, but we must consider that the Cassation Court's ruling is from March 9th, before the Constitutional Court's,” she points out.
Di Pilla sees a real risk in the way the news has been circulating. "They can create false expectations and cause greater damage to our project and the rights we are claiming," he warns, referring to companies that exploit the issue for commercial purposes with miraculous claims.
Why does each judge decide differently?
Lawyer Daniele Mariani points to a structural root cause for the persistent uncertainty. "Many judges are considering that the documentation must be fully filed with the initial petition, not accepting additions or corrections to documents," she observes.
The problem, according to her, arose with the redistribution of powers approved by the Italian government. Before 2022, all cases went through Rome, creating consistency in judgments. "Since 2022, with all these regional courts and their respective judges judging, each one judges according to their own reasoning, and this causes a jurisprudential conflict," explains Mariani.
In practice, this means that similar cases may receive different decisions depending on the court responsible for the trial.
What's next
The decision of the Sezioni Unite, the plenary chamber of the Court of Cassation, is still pending and should define the final framework for the ongoing processes. Until then, those who have solid documentation produced before the reform and can prove failed attempts to file the request have renewed arguments. Those who do not have this proof remain in uncertain territory.
FOLLOW ITALIANISM
