FOLLOW: Hearing at the Constitutional Court discusses new Italian citizenship law.

— Updated at 12:02 am —

What to expect from the Constitutional Court's decision.

Following the public hearing held on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, the Italian Constitutional Court is expected to deliberate and publish its decision in the coming months. The judgment concerns the constitutional compatibility of Article 3-bis of Law No. 91/1992, introduced by Decree-Law No. 36/2025, known as Tajani Decree, which significantly altered the rules for recognizing Italian citizenship by descent.

The question submitted to the Court by Turin Court The focus is primarily on one point: whether the legislator could also apply the new limitations to situations prior to the law coming into effect, affecting people born abroad who, until then, could have had their citizenship recognized based on the previous legislation.

The Court's decision could go in different directions.

1. Maintaining the law as it is.

The first possibility is that the Court will consider the reform constitutional and that the legislature acted within its margin of political decision-making power.

In this scenario, the new regime would remain fully valid. The restrictions introduced in 2025 would continue to apply to administrative and judicial processes for the recognition of citizenship.

This solution would mean accepting the argument put forward by the Italian State: that those who have not yet formally obtained recognition of citizenship do not possess an already established right, but only an expectation subject to the conditions defined by the law in force at the time of the application.

2. Declaration of partial unconstitutionality

A second scenario is the Court declaring only part of the rule is unconstitutional.

This outcome may occur if judges understand that the problem does not necessarily lie in creating new limits to the transmission of citizenship, but in the fact that these limits have also been applied to situations prior to the new law.

The question posed by the Turin Court itself points in this direction, specifically questioning the expression that makes the rule applicable "also before the date of entry into force" of the new article.

If this part is removed, the reform could continue to apply only to the future. In practical terms, this would mean preserving the new rules, but preventing them from affecting situations that arose under the previous regime.

3. Broader annulment of the rule

There is also the possibility of a more profound decision, in which the Court concludes that the reform violates constitutional principles more broadly.

In this case, the rule could be annulled entirely or in more extensive parts, with a possible return to the previous model of recognition of citizenship by descent.

This scenario is legally possible, but it's important to be realistic. The issue presented by the Turin Court is relatively specific and focuses primarily on the problem of the retroactive application of the law.

Therefore, a complete annulment is not impossible, but it is also not the most likely outcome given how the case was brought before the Court.

4. Declaration of inadmissibility

Finally, there is the possibility that the Court will declare the inadmissibility of the constitutional question.

In this case, the Court would not analyze the merits of the law's constitutionality. The case would return to the court that raised the issue, which would have to decide the case by applying the existing legislation.

In the Italian constitutional system, inadmissibility can occur for various procedural reasons. These include flaws in the formulation of the issue by the judge who presented it, lack of relevance to the main proceedings, or insufficient legal justification.

It is important to clarify a point that is often mentioned in a simplified way. The fact that the original action was filed on March 28, 2025, while the decree was published the following day, is not in itself sufficient to explain any potential inadmissibility.

The truly relevant element is the shipping order. (ordinanza di rimessione) This was subsequently issued by the Court of Turin, which recognized the relevance of the constitutional issue to the specific case and formally forwarded it to the Constitutional Court. It was on the basis of this referral that the judgment was made.

A decision with broad impact.

Regardless of the outcome, the Constitutional Court's decision will have a direct impact on thousands of ongoing Italian citizenship recognition processes.

Furthermore, the ruling could determine the extent to which Italian lawmakers can reform the rules governing the transmission of citizenship in a context marked by more than a century of migration and the existence of millions of descendants of Italians scattered around the world.

In other words, the Court will not only decide one specific case. It may establish the constitutional limits of Italian citizenship policy for decades to come.

— Updated at 11:47 am —

The state says descendants may not have an "effective link" with Italy.

"International law does not provide for any absolute right of a person to possess dual or multiple citizenship. What is guaranteed is only the right to have at least one citizenship and not to become stateless," he stated. Lorenzo D'Ascia, the lawyer for the Italian State, during the hearing at the Constitutional Court, which is judging the unconstitutionality of the new rules for Italian citizenship.

According to him, this means that states retain broad autonomy to define who can acquire or retain a specific citizenship.

The government argues that the descendants remained "inert for decades or centuries."

"The absence of any request for recognition for decades, sometimes for more than a century, on the part of ancestors and also of the descendants themselves, may be assessed by the legislator as grounds for considering the effective link with the Italian State broken."

According to the state's defense, this inaction would indicate the absence of a real link with Italy.

The state claims that citizenship may have been sought for convenience.

"The fact that recognition was not requested demonstrates a subjective choice, an assessment of utility or even personal convenience, as to whether it would be worthwhile to effectively become part of the Italian people."

According to D'Ascia, for this reason it would be inappropriate to speak of legitimate expectation in the maintenance of the right.

The defense argues that descendants do not have an acquired right to citizenship.

"Until recognition of citizenship is requested, it cannot be asserted that any right linked to Italian citizenship exists," said D'Ascia.

The lawyer argued that the new law does not take away a right already acquired, but only imposes stricter limits for those who had not yet requested recognition.

State says blood tie may have become "fictitious"

"After more than a century since the great wave of migration, the blood tie has weakened or even been neutralized by other factors, such as time, the acquisition of another citizenship, and the absence of any initiative to obtain recognition."

According to the state's defense attorney, D'Ascia, in many cases this connection has turned into "a fiction of belonging to the Italian people."

Government cites risk of up to 60 million new applications.

“By the end of 2024, there were already more than 5 million Italian citizens born and residing abroad. The risk of this number expanding is objectively incalculable, potentially reaching around 60 million applicants,” said Lorenzo D'Ascia, the Italian state attorney.

The state claims that citizenship is being used solely to obtain a passport.

"The current phenomenon shows that citizenship is often sought not to formalize a real integration into the state community, but to obtain a passport that allows for easier movement through other countries."

According to the Italian state's lawyer, Lorenzo D'Ascia, this would have motivated the legislative intervention.

— Updated at 11:11 am —

The trial will not have an immediate decision.

Wednesday's hearing will not result in a final decision.

The session serves as an opportunity for the parties to present their legal arguments. The representative of the Italian State also participates.

After this phase, the judges of the Constitutional Court begin internal deliberations on the case.

There is no fixed deadline for the publication of the sentence. The interval between the hearing and the decision can vary from a few weeks to several months.

— Updated at 11:06 am —

Corapi criticizes discrimination in the new law.

"The legislator created an arbitrary discrimination between people who have the same right to citizenship from birth, keeping some in and excluding others without any plausible justification," the lawyer stated. Diego Corapi.

According to him, the new rule ignores principles of European law, such as proportionality and effectiveness. Corapi argued that the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union requires that changes in citizenship legislation guarantee a reasonable timeframe for those concerned to become aware of the new rule and to act to preserve their rights. "Here, exactly the opposite occurred, with an automatic, retroactive, and generalized repeal," he said.

The lawyer also requested that, should any doubt remain, the Constitutional Court submit the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union for interpretation of EU law.

— Updated at 10:57 am —

Caruso defends citizenship as an acquired right.

“The right to citizenship by jus sanguinis is a perfect, imprescriptible subjective right that does not depend on administrative discretion. The procedure serves only to recognize a right that already exists,” stated the lawyer. Corrado Caruso during the hearing.

He criticized the state's defense position, according to which descendants would only have a legal expectation of initiating an administrative procedure. "This interpretation improperly equates the recognition of citizenship with the naturalization process, in contrast to the consolidated jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court itself," he argued.

— Updated at 10:52 am —

Restanio criticizes administrative obstacles.

"The right to citizenship by jus sanguinis, which arises with parentage, cannot be transformed into a mere expectation conditioned on the timing of a protocol or the availability of an appointment," argued the lawyer. Monica Lis Restanio.

According to her, treating recognition in this way "annihilates the very essence of status civitatis and ignores its constitutional protection."

According to her, for decades, the administration created artificial obstacles that distorted this principle. Children considered non-direct heirs were subjected to waits of more than ten years just to get an appointment and begin the recognition procedure. Inoperative scheduling systems, endless waiting lists, and ever-increasing costs ended up excluding people who were entitled to a legitimate right until the very last minute.

— Updated at 10:19 am —

Court rejects request for intervention.

After a suspension of 1 hour and 6 minutes (they left at 10:05 and returned) 11:11(from Rome), the hearing resumes. The panel of the Constitutional Court decided not to accept the intervention presented by Marco Mellone.

— Updated at 9:49 am —

Court reviews Mellone's request for intervention.

The hearing is suspended while the Constitutional Court panel deliberates, in closed session, on the admissibility of the request submitted by Marco Mellone.

The lawyer requested permission to intervene in the proceedings, arguing that the discussion also involves one of his clients in the Campobasso case, a court that challenged the current Italian citizenship law. According to Melloni, the issue is recent and there was no time to formalize the participation within the procedural deadline.

According to sources close to the process, the move promoted by Marco Melloni, who asked to intervene in the hearing this Wednesday (11), is part of a previously articulated legal strategy.

Over the past two weeks, the legal team has worked to try to steer the matter through a procedural route that avoids a solution of an essentially political nature. The concern was to prevent the case from being resolved by applying the principle of “Melius re perpensa”which could pave the way for a change in legal orientation.

In this scenario, according to the report, the Constitutional Court would be inclined to declare the legitimacy issue raised by the Turinio court inadmissible, while simultaneously recognizing the position defended by the government.

Given this situation, the strategy adopted had a clear procedural objective: to try to obtain at least a hearing for the Turin case with the proceedings underway in Mantua. This maneuver would allow them to gain time while awaiting the eventual publication of new judicial decisions.

The calculation also targets a specific date on the Italian legal calendar: the hearing scheduled for April 14 before the Sezioni Unite da Corte de Cassaçãowhich will examine the issue of children born before their parents became naturalized.

Behind the scenes, the interpretation is straightforward: it's a procedural strategy to preserve legal interpretations that, according to those involved, the political establishment seems willing to ignore.

— Updated at 9:25 am —

Hearing suspended following request for intervention.

The hearing was suspended for a few minutes while the Court panel deliberates, in a closed session, on the admissibility of the request submitted by Marco Mellone.

The lawyer requested authorization to intervene in the proceedings, arguing that the matter under discussion also affects one of his clients involved in a case pending in Campobasso, another court that recently challenged the current Italian citizenship law. According to Melloni, this is a recently arising issue, which would have prevented him from formally requesting his participation within the established procedural timeframe.

“I take the liberty of asking the president and this most excellent Court to declare the intervention admissible, because it is timely, because my clients are holders of this subjective legal status and, in fact, are substantial parties to this constitutional process. Therefore, they should be placed on the same level as the appellants today, and this defense on the same level as the defense acting today,” says Marco Mellone.

Updated at 8:58 am

The rapporteur begins the hearing by reading the petitions.

The hearing began with the reading of all the petitions by Giovanni Pitruzzella, rapporteur for the judgment of the Tajani Decree on citizenship.

Next, they should speak. (not in this order):

Avv. Alfonso CELOTTO
Avv. Diego CORAPI
Avv. Monica Lis RESTANIO
Avv. Giovanni CARIDI
Avv. Riccardo DE SIMONE
Avv. Benedetta BALLATORE
Avv. Giovanni Bonato
Corrado Caruso Avenue
Avv. Stato: Ilia MASSARELLI
Avv. Stato: Lorenzo D'ASCIA

Updated at 8:51 am

Constitutional Court judges rules of citizenship.

The Constitutional Court of Italy will hold a hearing on Wednesday, March 11, regarding the new rules for Italian citizenship.

The session will be streamed live online. The public can follow it on Italianismo.