Constitutional Court 63/2026 and Italian Citizenship by Descent

On 30 April 2026 the Italian Constitutional Court deposited judgment no. 63/2026, ruling on questions raised by the Tribunal of Turin concerning Article 3-bis of Law no. 91/1992, the provision introduced by the 2025 reform known as the Tajani Decree (Law 74/2025).

This article is intended for individuals seeking Italian citizenship by descent, legal practitioners, and anyone affected by recent reforms. Understanding the Constitutional Court’s judgment is crucial for navigating current and future citizenship claims. The topic matters because the Court’s decision directly impacts citizenship rights, the status of pending applications, and the legal strategies available to applicants and their advisors.

What the constitutional court decided

The Court declared the questions partly unfounded and partly inadmissible. Read only through headlines, that outcome sounds like a closing of the door. Read in full, the judgment leaves the central arguments of citizenship litigation intact and, in two respects, reinforces them.

The question before the court

Article 3-bis introduced a two-generation limit on the recognition of Italian citizenship by descent for those born abroad holding another nationality, effectively requiring proof of Italian ancestry only up to an Italian-born parent or grandparent in Italy. The Tribunal of Turin referred to the Constitutional Court the question of whether that provision is compatible with the Constitution, a reform reflected in the Tajani Decree and Law 74/2025 and framed around requiring closer ties to Italy from applicants.

Citizenship by descent is a legitimate category of original acquisition under Italian law, and citizenship status is constitutionally protected and includes a range of political rights. The Constitutional Court evaluates whether citizenship laws comply with the Italian Constitution, and legislative discretion in citizenship must respect reasonableness and proportionality principles. The court has upheld caps on citizenship by descent and ruled that restricting ius sanguinis does not violate EU law, provided citizenship laws comply with EU law principles where applicable.

The question the Court had to answer was therefore not whether the reform is good policy, but whether Parliament could enact it in the terms it chose — and, critically, what it does to positions that had already matured under the previous law.

The reasoning

Three points emerge from the judgment and bear directly on pending and future claims.

Recognition of citizenship is declaratory, not constitutive. The Court expressly endorsed the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in the United Sections’ judgments nos. 25317/2022 and 25318/2022: the status civitatis based on filiation is permanent, imprescriptible and justiciable at any time on proof of birth from an Italian citizen. Recognition is, in the Court’s own words, meramente dichiarativo e non costitutivo. Citizenship that already exists at birth is not something the State confers at its discretion.

The reform operates as an original preclusion, not as a deprivation. The Court clarified that Article 3-bis establishes a preclusion to acquisition for those born abroad with another nationality, but that it does not affect the rights of those who had already obtained recognition, or who had already submitted an application before the law entered into force. This distinction matters for every pending case, and for applicants whose ability to apply was frustrated by consular dysfunction, because under Article 22 of the Italian Constitution no one may be deprived of citizenship for political reasons.

The constitutional debate is not closed. Judgment no. 63/2026 answered the specific questions referred by Turin. It is one chapter. The Court accepted legislative discretion in citizenship matters under Italian law only within limits of reasonableness and proportionality, and tied the reform to the need for a genuine connection between applicants and the Italian state. Other referrals, from other tribunals, raise distinct profiles of constitutional illegitimacy under the Italian constitution that the Turin decision does not exhaust. On the questions actually before it, the court found the restriction of iure sanguinis not incompatible with EU law.

What it means for applicants for Italian citizenship by descent in a similar position

1948 cases are untouched. This point deserves to be stated without qualification: judgment no. 63/2026 does not affect 1948 cases, and neither does Law 74/2025. Where Italian lineage passes through a female ancestor at any point before 1 January 1948, the right does not derive from a statute the legislature can amend. It derives from the Constitution, as declared by the Constitutional Court itself in judgment no. 87/1975 — which held unconstitutional, under Articles 3 and 29 of the Constitution, the loss of citizenship by women upon marriage — and in judgment no. 30/1983, which held unconstitutional the exclusion of Italian mothers from transmitting citizenship to their children. The same constitutional logic was then applied retroactively in citizenship-by-descent litigation by a 2009 Supreme Court ruling, which is why these maternal-line claims under jure sanguinis remain constitutionally protected. Law 74/2025 is ordinary legislation. Under Article 136 of the Constitution, ordinary legislation cannot override constitutionally grounded rights recognized through binding constitutional jurisprudence.

Consular “lack of appointment” cases are strengthened. The reasoning is straightforward. An applicant who attempted to file before 2025 but was denied the opportunity because the consulate provided no appointment cannot be assessed under rules that did not exist when they sought to file. The governing law for such a case is the pre-2025 legislation — the law in force when the applicant had the right to proceed. The Court’s reaffirmation that citizenship is acquired at birth, and that recognition merely declares it, points the same way: a party cannot be penalised for failing to comply with a procedure that the responsible authority made impossible.

Key Evidence to Gather

Applicants in this position should assemble, without waiting, the records needed to show an unbroken chain from the relevant Italian ancestor to the applicant, including where relevant proof that the ancestor held exclusively Italian citizenship at the key moment and remained Italian at death when that issue affects whether citizenship can be recognized for descendants who later acquired Italian citizenship status by operation of law rather than by grant. Citizenship applications may be submitted at an Italian consulate or in Italy, often through the competent Italian municipality, so applicants should prepare long-form certified vital records with legalization and translation where required.

Types of Documentation

• Prenot@mi registration emails. The platform sent an automatic confirmation on first registration. However old, it was generated by the Italian government’s own system and proves engagement with the consular process before 2025.
• All correspondence with the consulate — confirmations, replies, automated responses, document requests, appointment queries. Search archived and spam folders too.
• Screenshots and records of failed appointment attempts: “no appointments available” messages, waitlist confirmations, error pages, empty calendars.
• Any other outreach: phone logs, raccomandate receipts, PEC communications, contacts with honorary consulates.
• Evidence of file preparation: apostilles, sworn translations, vital records obtained, payments to genealogists, notarised documents, and records proving the link to the Italian parent or to children born abroad where the line passes through Italian citizens abroad.

Practical Steps for Applicants

1. Gather all relevant documentation listed above as soon as possible.
2. Organize the documents chronologically to demonstrate a clear timeline of your attempts to apply.
3. Prepare long-form certified vital records, ensuring they are legalized and translated where required.
4. Submit your application at the appropriate Italian consulate or municipality, referencing your prior attempts and supporting evidence.
5. Consult with a legal professional if your case involves complex issues or if you encounter resistance from authorities.

Applications filed before the reform. Pending applications submitted before 28 March 2025 remain protected and are processed under the previous, less restrictive rules.

Reacquisition for those who lost citizenship before 1992. Law 74/2025 contains a special provision allowing reacquisition without a residency requirement for those who lost citizenship before 1992, open until 31 December 2027.

How this fits the wider case law and the Tajani decree

The Constitutional Court, although having issued judgment no. 63/2026, has not yet decided on all the issues raised regarding the Tajani reform. In particular, it has suspended some proceedings and referred relevant questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling. This referral mainly concerns the application of the new rules for recognition of Italian citizenship in relation to European Union law, especially the principle of non-discrimination and the rights connected to EU citizenship. The broader legal landscape is significant: the ruling affects around 80 million people claiming Italian descent, and approximately 60,000 applicants filed before the 27 March 2025 cutoff.

The referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union implies that the Constitutional Court deemed it necessary to further examine the compliance of Italian rules introduced by the Tajani Decree with European law, particularly regarding cases of individuals born abroad holding another citizenship. It also sits alongside Judgment No. 142/2025, which reaffirmed that citizenship by descent reflects longstanding legal traditions.

This step opens an important chapter in the litigation over Italian citizenship, as the CJEU’s decision could significantly influence the application of the new rules and the fate of thousands of pending appeals in Italian courts. It will also shape how future citizenship cases and related lawsuits are assessed as this area continues to evolve.

While awaiting the decision of the European Court, Italian tribunals will continue to evaluate cases individually, potentially with varied outcomes, and Law 74/2025 remains in force. The CJEU ruling is eagerly awaited as it may clarify if and how European law limits the discretion of the Italian Parliament in defining the criteria for acquiring Italian citizenship. For that reason, judges may reach different conclusions in pending cases, and rulings of this kind do not automatically bind other courts.

Recent Lower Court Decisions

Lower courts have continued to recognise citizenship in carefully argued post-reform cases. Among the decisions on record: the Tribunal of Venice on 12 March 2026; the Tribunal of Brescia, decision no. 3280/2026, limiting the reach of the new law for descendants whose rights had already matured; and the Tribunal of Bologna, ruling no. 3335/26 of 17 April 2026, which granted citizenship to an eleven-member family within the post-reform framework.

Judgment no. 63/2026 must now also be read alongside the United Sections’ judgment no. 24045/2026 of 26 July 2026, which resolved the “minor issue” and expressly confirmed — as its first binding principle — that Article 3-bis does not apply to judicial claims filed before 27 March 2025.

Disclaimer

Disclaimer. This article provides general information about a judicial development and does not constitute legal advice. The effect of judgment no. 63/2026 on any individual situation depends on the specific facts, timing and documentary record of each case.