Italy’s Constitutional Court upholds limits on citizenship by descent (ius sanguinis)

On 12 March, Italy’s Constitutional Court rejected requests to review the constitutionality of a provision in Law 74/2025. In doing so, the court confirmed the legal approach already in force since last year and introduced through an emergency decree. At the heart of the regulation is a generation-based restriction on citizenship acquired by descent: within the logic of ius sanguinis, this effectively reduces the ability to pass status down the family line.

The official decision was issued in the form of a press release. The full text of the ruling (sentenza) will be published later.

The proceedings also considered disagreements raised by the Turin tribunal. In some instances, the court found the applicants’ arguments unconvincing and dismissed the claims on the merits. In other cases, the issue was not examined substantively due to procedural factors.

A new framework: citizenship is deemed “not to have arisen”

The updated procedure—often referred to in the media as the “Tajani Decree” (after Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani)—rests on a legal presumption. If a person was born outside Italy and held another nationality, the state assumes that Italian citizenship was not acquired in a legal sense.

The key point is retroactivity: the rule applies to applications regardless of the applicant’s birth date. At the same time, the legislature set out only three limited exceptions:

• Confirmation of status is possible if an application is filed by 27 March 2025 inclusive, respecting the deadline by 23:59 Rome time.
• A parent or a grandparent must have (or must have had at the time of death) solely Italian citizenship.
• The parent (or adoptive parent) must have been resident in Italy for at least two consecutive years after obtaining Italian citizenship—and up to the birth (or adoption) of the applicant.

For families that for years have viewed themselves as holders of Italian citizenship through their ancestors, the difference between approaches becomes decisive. Under the “loss after acquisition” model, citizenship is presumed to have arisen first and then been lost. Under the “status did not arise” model, it is assumed that at some point in the chain of legal succession, Italian status did not legally form.

Particularly noteworthy is the condition of “exclusivity” in scenario (b). If, after emigrating, an Italian citizen acquired another country’s nationality and therefore no longer met the requirement of “only Italian citizenship,” later generations may fail to obtain the basis to pass on status.

On 23 May 2025, the emergency decree was converted into law. As a result, the model that previously allowed citizenship to be transmitted without restrictions on the number of generations was formally replaced.

The court’s decision: some arguments dismissed, others not examined on the merits

The court grouped the arguments into two categories: some were examined and found unconvincing, while others were considered unsuitable for substantive review. This distinction determines which lines of defense may still be used in future proceedings.

Rejected as unfounded (substantive assessment):

• The claim of a violation of Article 3 of the Italian Constitution. The applicants argued that the cutoff of 27 March 2025 is arbitrary and, in essence, amounts to a retroactive “nullification” of rights that had already been established.
• The argument that it is incompatible with EU law. It relied on Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which guarantee EU citizenship status for nationals of Member States.

Declared inadmissible (without a substantive evaluation):

• A reference to Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of citizenship.
• An argument under Article 3(2) of Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to enter one’s own country.

The wording “inadmissible” means the court did not reach a substantive conclusion on the listed provisions. In the future, applicants may return to these arguments in other procedures, including in international forums—such as the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg and the ECHR in Strasbourg.

At the same time, regarding EU law, Italy’s Constitutional Court has already ruled on the merits. Therefore, when turning to European bodies, it will be necessary to account for the national court’s conclusion: the restriction on ius sanguinis does not conflict with EU citizenship rules.

What disputes are still developing

Even after the 12 March ruling, several paths remain for continuing litigation:

• The Mantova referral (Mantova referral).
  The Mantua tribunal initiated its own constitutional review of the same act, but based on different legal grounds. The next hearing is scheduled for 9 June 2026. This means the case will be considered by a new court composition and with a different set of arguments.
• Proceedings before Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation (Sezioni Unite).
  The highest civil-law authority will address the issue of minority status on 14 April 2026. The question is whether a decision by an ancestor to naturalize—made while the child was still a minor—can break the chain of transmission for subsequent generations. It is noted that this framing predates the “Tajani Decree” and could potentially affect a significant body of cases already being handled today—regardless of the generation limit.
• European institutions.
  Constitutional law professor Corrado Caruso (one of the lawyers who opposed the decree at the 11 March hearings) notes that he considers an appeal to European bodies the last real option for the descendants of the applicants.

Practical implications for applicants

For those hoping to have Italian descent confirmed, the ruling significantly narrows prospects. Estimates suggest that roughly 80 million people worldwide maintain ties to Italy. According to CNN, around 60,000 applicants who submitted documents before 27 March 2025 are still litigating under the earlier rules—without any generation limit.

For everyone else, the options boil down to two directions: either proceed under the new criteria and confirm status under the current procedure, or wait for the outcomes of the ongoing court cases.

The most affected diasporas, according to reports from specialized organizations and assessments by community groups, are concentrated in Brazil (about 32 million people with Italian roots), Argentina (around 25 million), and the United States. Diaspora representatives have already stated their intention to seek further appeals.

If you’re planning a move to Europe via Italian investment-based residence/citizenship routes, it’s crucial to understand how status eligibility is interpreted in practice. Recent Italian court positions on citizenship by descent highlight that legal mechanisms can evolve and include important nuances. The Digital Nomad team can assess your situation and help choose the most suitable option to obtain status in Italy based on current requirements.

Our Telegram channel about various types of Greek residence permits, digital nomad programs, and the Greek Golden Visa: @digitalnomadgr