Italian Citizenship by Descent after Ruling No. 63/2026: is jure sanguinis really over?

Check Your Eligibility →

 

The Italian Constitutional Court examined Article 3-bis of Law No. 91/1992, introduced by Decree-Law No. 36/2025 and later converted into Law No. 74/2025. The reform, commonly referred to as the Tajani Decree, limits the automatic recognition of Italian citizenship by descent for many people born outside Italy who also hold another citizenship.

Under the reform, a person born abroad with another nationality may be considered never to have automatically acquired Italian citizenship unless an exception applies. The principal exceptions include:

• having filed an administrative or judicial application by 23:59, or 11:59 p.m., Rome time on March 27, 2025;
• having received and confirmed a consular or municipal appointment communicated by the same deadline;
• a first- or second-generation ascendant, meaning a parent or grandparent, holding only Italian citizenship;
• an Italian parent who lived in Italy for at least two continuous years before the applicant’s birth or adoption;
• specific transitional cases set out in the legislation.

In Italian Constitutional Court Judgment No. 63/2026, deposited on April 30, 2026, the Court rejected the constitutional challenge raised by the Tribunal of Turin in relation to several arguments, including equality, reasonableness, legitimate expectations, acquired rights, and certain EU-law objections under Articles 9 TEU and 20 TFEU.

That is important. But it is not the whole story.

The Court decided the case that was before it. It did not decide every possible question arising from the Italian citizenship reform 2025, the Tajani Decree Italian citizenship changes, or the practical position of applicants blocked by consular appointment systems.

Did Judgment No. 63/2026 abolish jure sanguinis?

No. Judgment No. 63/2026 did not abolish jure sanguinis. It confirmed that the legislature has broad discretion to limit Italian citizenship by descent, especially where lawmakers claim the goal is to restore an effective connection between citizenship and Italy.

But the ruling did not eliminate all routes to Italian citizenship through Italian ancestors.

Italian citizenship jure sanguinis remains possible in certain cases, particularly where a statutory exception applies or where the applicant’s position falls into an unresolved legal category.

This matters for applicants searching for Italian citizenship by descent USA, Italian citizenship by descent Canada, or Italian citizenship by descent Australia. The practical answer is not “everyone can still apply” and not “everyone is barred.” The answer is case-specific.

This ruling closed one constitutional argument. It left other fronts open.

Why section 9.1 matters for applicants without a consular appointment

Section 9.1 is one of the most important parts of Judgment No. 63/2026 for applicants who tried to begin the process before March 27, 2025 but could not obtain a consular appointment.

In section 9.1, the Court stated that the question concerning the difference between two groups remains left open, in Italian, impregiudicata: people who received an appointment, and people who initiated the citizenship recognition procedure but did not receive an appointment by 23:59, or 11:59 p.m., Rome time on March 27, 2025.

The Court expressly said this issue was outside the Turin referral and was therefore not decided.

That wording is significant.

It means section 9.1 did not decide the merits of applicants who acted before the deadline but were unable to obtain a Prenot@mi appointment or Italian citizenship consular appointment. Their position was not rejected. It was not approved either. It was left open.

For many applicants, especially Americans dealing with high-demand consulates in New York, Miami, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, Houston, or Washington, D.C., this distinction may matter.

The same may be true for applicants seeking Italian citizenship Toronto, Italian citizenship Montreal, Italian citizenship Vancouver, Italian citizenship Sydney, Italian citizenship Melbourne, or Italian citizenship Brisbane, where appointment availability and document timing can be decisive.

The question is simple: should someone who tried to act before March 27, 2025 be treated the same as someone who did nothing?

Section 9.1 did not answer that question. That is why the case is not closed.

 

 

What section 9.2.2 says about legitimate expectations

Section 9.2.2 of Judgment No. 63/2026 contains one of the most important passages for applicants who took concrete steps before the March 27, 2025 cutoff.

The Court acknowledged that Article 3-bis excludes citizenship acquisition ex tunc, retroactively, for a broad group of people, and that this affected their expectation of being able one day to request recognition of Italian citizenship by ancestry and exercise the rights attached to that status, including residence in Italy and voting.

The Court ultimately rejected the Turin challenge. However, its reasoning also contains language that may support a distinction between applicants who acted and applicants who remained inactive.

In an informal English translation, the Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

“One cannot treat as equivalent, from the standpoint of legitimate expectations, those who acted compared to those who remained inactive in the face of a status that requires prior recognition for the effective enjoyment of the rights attached to it.”
— Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 63/2026, section 9.2.2

 

What section 9.2.2 means in practice

In plain English: the Court recognized that two applicants may not be in the same position when one of them had already taken concrete steps to begin the citizenship recognition procedure and the other had done nothing.

That does not mean every person who began collecting documents is automatically protected. It means the argument has a textual basis in the judgment itself and must be evaluated case by case.

For people concerned about Italian citizenship acquired rights, Italian citizenship vested rights, or Italian citizenship pending applications, the key issue is evidence: What did you do? When did you do it? Can you prove it?

This passage provides a textual basis on which a post-Judgment No. 63/2026 litigation strategy may be built, in cases where applicants can document concrete steps taken before March 27, 2025.

What counts as “taking concrete steps” before March 27, 2025?

“Taking concrete steps” may include documented, dated actions showing that the applicant had begun the citizenship recognition process before the cutoff.

This is a legal interpretation that may still require judicial validation and should not be presented as settled law. But in a carefully prepared case, relevant evidence may include:

• genealogical research started before March 27, 2025;
• requests for Italian or foreign civil records, including birth, marriage, and death certificates;
• naturalization record requests, including USCIS, NARA, Library and Archives Canada, or National Archives of Australia requests;
• professional engagement with an Italian citizenship lawyer for Americans, Canadians, or Australians;
• attempts to book a Prenot@mi appointment, including dated screenshots and error logs;
• emails to Italian consulates with timestamps and delivery confirmations;
• certified communications, PEC, registered mail, or formal correspondence;
• document translation, apostille, or legalization orders dated before the cutoff;
• written requests to municipalities, archives, courts, churches, or government offices.

The stronger evidence is usually dated, specific, and connected to the actual Italian citizenship by descent process. A general interest in family history may not be enough. A dated request for an ancestor’s Italian birth certificate, a failed Prenot@mi appointment attempt, or a signed legal engagement may be more useful.

This is especially relevant for applicants who were preparing Italian citizenship from Italian great-grandparent USA cases, fourth-generation claims, or complex 1948 cases before the reform.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

The Bologna ruling and why it matters

Bologna ruling matters because it shows that at least one Italian court has accepted an argument for applicants who acted before March 27, 2025 without obtaining a consular appointment.

The Tribunal of Bologna, in ruling No. 3335/2026 of April 17, 2026, in a case handled by Aprigliano International Law Firm, recognized Italian citizenship for descendants of the second, third, and fourth generation who had not obtained an official consular appointment but had formalized their intention before the March 27, 2025 deadline.

It appears to be one of the first known Italian decisions to accept this interpretation after the Tajani Decree, and it predates Judgment No. 63/2026 by thirteen days.

This does not mean every similar case will win.

It means there is a concrete litigation path for certain applicants who can show that they began the recognition process before the cutoff and were blocked by administrative obstacles, appointment saturation, or other factors outside their control.

For applicants in the United States, Canada, and Australia, this is often the most practical issue. Many people were not ignoring Italian citizenship law — they were trying to find appointments, order records, correct vital records, obtain naturalization documents, or build a complete jure sanguinis file.

The Bologna ruling supports the public-facing argument that the legal battle has shifted, not ended.

The EU law front: could the CJEU still review the Tajani Decree?

Yes, the EU law front remains possible, but it is not guaranteed.

The Italian Constitutional Court did not refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU. It held, in substance, that the EU citizenship case law on loss of nationality, including Rottmann, Tjebbes, and Wiener Landesregierung, was not decisive for people whose Italian citizenship had not yet been formally recognized.

But ordinary Italian courts may still be asked to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU. The CJEU has the final authority to interpret EU law, including the rules and principles connected to EU citizenship.

This matters because EU citizenship is attached to nationality of a Member State. The Constitutional Court itself discussed Article 9 TEU and Article 20 TFEU, both of which state that EU citizenship is additional to national citizenship and does not replace it.

What questions the CJEU could examine

If an Italian court asks the CJEU whether the Tajani Decree Italian citizenship restrictions are compatible with EU law, the CJEU could examine the practical effect of the law. Relevant questions may include:

• whether the reform operates automatically, without individual assessment;
• whether it allows a proportionality review of each applicant’s situation;
• whether the person had a reasonable opportunity to act;
• whether it produces something closer to a retroactive loss of citizenship than a mere change in acquisition rules.

If EU law is found applicable and the domestic rule is incompatible, an Italian court may be required to disapply the incompatible domestic law in the specific case, potentially even where the Italian Constitutional Court has upheld the domestic provision under Italian constitutional parameters.

That is not a prediction. It is a possible litigation route.

“Potential citizenship” and the problem of retroactive non-acquisition

The central legal problem is whether Article 3-bis truly creates a rule of “non-acquisition of citizenship,” or whether it functions in substance as a retroactive loss of citizenship.

This is the labeling problem, what Italian legal commentators sometimes call the truffa delle etichette.

The reform says that certain people born abroad and holding another citizenship are deemed never to have acquired Italian citizenship. That is the label: non-acquisition of citizenship.

But under the traditional understanding of Italian citizenship jure sanguinis, recognition by a consulate or court was usually declaratory, not creative. In other words: if the line was valid and uninterrupted, the person was treated as Italian from birth; the proceeding merely recognized that status.

Judgment No. 63/2026 moves toward a different framework. The preamble of Decree-Law No. 36/2025, expressly cited by the Court at section 9.2.1, describes descendants jure sanguinis as “potential Italian citizens.”

The Court adopts this framework when it reasons that the status of unrecognized descendants is not yet certain and that no rights are concretely exercisable before formal recognition. It also emphasized the reform’s goal of requiring effective ties with Italy, a genuine connection with Italy, especially for people born abroad across multiple generations.

That is why the distinction matters.

• If the applicant never acquired citizenship, the legislature may have more room to redefine the rules.
• If the applicant acquired citizenship at birth under the law as previously understood, then applying the reform retroactively may look more like retroactive loss of citizenship.

Calling something “non-acquisition” does not necessarily settle its legal nature. Courts may still need to examine the substance.

This is the core of the truffa delle etichette problem: changing the label of a legal effect does not automatically change what the effect actually does. And it is exactly the type of substantive question on which the CJEU, when asked, may look at effects rather than national labels.

What this means for applicants in the United States

Americans can still seek an individual assessment for Italian citizenship by descent USA after Judgment No. 63/2026, but eligibility is now more restricted and more technical.

In the United States, the main practical bottleneck has often been access to Italian consular appointments through Prenot@mi, especially in jurisdictions with large Italian-American communities. For many applicants, the problem was not a lack of interest or action. It was the practical impossibility of obtaining an available appointment before the legal cutoff.

For people searching “Italian citizenship by descent USA,” “Italian dual citizenship for Americans,” or “Italian citizenship from Italian great-grandparent USA,” the key questions are now more detailed than before.

You should review:

• whether your parent or grandparent held only Italian citizenship;
• whether an Italian parent lived in Italy for at least two continuous years before your birth or adoption;
• whether you filed a court or administrative application by March 27, 2025;
• whether you received and confirmed an Italian citizenship consular appointment USA before the deadline;
• whether you tried to obtain a Prenot@mi appointment before March 27, 2025;
• whether you requested records, hired counsel, or took other concrete steps before the cutoff;
• whether your case may involve a 1948 maternal line;
• whether your ancestor naturalized before or after the birth of the next person in the line.

For many Americans, the consular path has become harder. Some cases may require judicial review in Italy. An Italian citizenship lawyer for Americans should assess the full timeline, not just the family tree.

Check Your Eligibility →

 

Check Your Eligibility →