Published on July 24 2026 |  Author: Avv. Salvatore Aprigliano | Aprigliano International Law Firm

Last updated: September 16th, 2026 | Updated to reflect CJEU Case C-816/26, Picuso, and subsequent legal and procedural developments.

Italian citizenship by descent has entered a new phase. On July 23, 2026, the Italian Constitutional Court filed Order No. 147/2026, suspending its own proceedings on the 2025 Italian citizenship reform and referring a central legal question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). If you are a descendant of an Italian citizen living in the United States, Canada, Australia, or elsewhere abroad, and you have been trying to make sense of what this means for your own path to Italian citizenship by descent, this article gives you the complete, accurate picture, without the sensational headlines.

This is not a summary of a rumor. It is based directly on the Constitutional Court’s own published Order and on the legal analysis our firm, Aprigliano International Law Firm, has been building since the Tajani Reform was first introduced in March 2025.

 

Table of contents

1. What is Order No. 147/2026?
2. Quick answer box
3. Background: what the 2025 Tajani Reform changed
4. What the Constitutional Court was asked to decide
5. What Order No. 147/2026 actually says
6. Timeline: from decree to EU referral
7. Has the Tajani Reform been struck down?
8. Why didn’t the Court just decide this in April 2026?
9. We called this in May: what Avv. Aprigliano already told Il Giornale
10. Why the EU referral matters: the European citizenship angle
11. What happens next, step by step
12. How this affects different situations
13. Comparison table: before vs. after the Tajani Reform
14. Checklist: what should you do right now?
15. Frequently asked questions
16. Key takeaways
17. About Aprigliano International Law Firm

 

1. What is Order No. 147/2026?

Order No. 147/2026 is a ruling issued by the Italian Constitutional Court (Corte Costituzionale) on July 23, 2026. In it, the Court:

• Suspended three joined proceedings pending before it (two originating from the Court of Campobasso and one from the Court of Mantua);
• Referred a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union under the mechanism of judicial cooperation between national courts and EU courts;
• Asked the CJEU to clarify whether Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which govern EU citizenship, prevent Italy from applying the 2025 citizenship reform retroactively to people born before the reform who would have qualified for recognition under the previous rules.

You can read the official ruling directly on the Constitutional Court’s website: Corte Costituzionale — Sito ufficiale.

2. Quick answer: what does this mean for Italian citizenship by descent?

Does Order No. 147/2026 restore Italian citizenship by descent for everyone affected by the 2025 reform?

No. The order does not decide the case. It pauses the Constitutional Court’s own proceedings and asks the CJEU to answer a specific legal question. Article 3-bis of Law No. 91/1992 introduced by the 2025 Citizenship Reform remains fully in force while the European court considers the matter. A ruling from the CJEU is realistically expected within 12 to 24 months.

 

3. Background: what the 2025 Tajani Reform changed

Before March 2025, Italian citizenship by descent (jure sanguinis) could, in principle, be recognized without a fixed generational limit, provided the applicant could document an unbroken line of descent from an Italian citizen who never formally renounced citizenship before the birth of his descendant.

Decree-Law No. 36/2025, later converted into Law No. 74/2025 and widely known as the Tajani Decree or Tajani Reform, introduced Article 3-bis into Law No. 91 of 1992. This provision changed the rule in a specific and far-reaching way:

• A person born outside Italy who holds another citizenship is treated as if they had never acquired Italian citizenship, unless one of a limited set of exceptions applies.
• The recognized exceptions include: having already filed an administrative application or a court case, or having obtained an official consular appointment, by March 27, 2025; and having a parent or grandparent who held only Italian citizenship.
• Critically, the exclusion applies retroactively, not only to people born after the reform, but also to people already born before it who, under the previous law, would have qualified for recognition.

That retroactive effect is precisely what is now before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

4. What the Constitutional Court was asked to decide

On June 9, 2026, the Constitutional Court heard three joined cases (two referred by the Court of Campobasso, one by the Court of Mantua) concerning people who would have qualified for Italian citizenship by descent under the law in force before 2025, but who were excluded once Article 3-bis applied retroactively, including many applicants whose Italian ancestor was a great-grandparent or a more distant relative.

The core legal question: can these new generational limits be lawfully applied to people who were already born before the reform came into force?

5. What Order No. 147/2026 actually says

In the order filed on July 23, 2026, the Constitutional Court determined that the EU-law dimension of this question requires a binding interpretation from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Because Italian citizenship automatically confers EU citizenship, how EU law is interpreted directly affects the outcome.

The Court therefore:

• Suspended the three pending cases;
• Formulated a preliminary question for the CJEU on whether Articles 9 TEU and 20 TFEU preclude national legislation that creates an “original bar” to citizenship acquisition, applied retroactively, for people born abroad who hold another citizenship and do not fall within the reform’s exceptions;
• Confirmed that once issued, the CJEU’s interpretation will be binding on all Italian courts, including the Constitutional Court itself when it resumes the suspended cases.

6. Timeline: from Decree to EU Referral

7. Has the Tajani Reform been struck down? 

No. Article 3-bis of Law No. 91/1992 remains in force while the case is pending before the CJEU. Order No. 147/2026 does not strike down the reform, suspend it nationwide, or reopen the consular application route for people excluded by it. Italian consulates may continue to reject applications that do not meet the current law’s requirements until the CJEU rules.

8. Why didn’t the Court just decide this in April 2026?

This is one of the most important and least reported aspects of Order No. 147/2026.

In Decision No. 63/2026, issued April 30, 2026, the Constitutional Court declined to make a preliminary reference because it considered the existing CJEU case law sufficiently clear to resolve the EU-law issue without asking Luxembourg.

In Order No. 147/2026, the Court formally maintained that reasoning, but nevertheless decided to refer the question, invoking the principle of sincere cooperation and the CJEU’s authority to give the definitive interpretation of EU law.

That creates an important tension. If the answer had remained as clear as the Court considered it in Judgment No. 63, there would have been less reason to seek a preliminary ruling. Order No. 147 therefore does not expressly reverse Judgment No. 63, but it shows that the EU-law issue could no longer simply be treated as closed at national level.

This matters for two reasons:

1. A law can be valid under the Italian Constitution while still being incompatible with EU law. These are two separate legal orders, and the Constitutional Court itself has now confirmed that the EU dimension needed further examination.
2. The EU-law argument can no longer be dismissed as already settled. Before July 23, 2026, courts handling individual citizenship cases could point to Decision No. 63/2026 to argue the matter was closed. That argument is now considerably harder to sustain, since Italy’s own constitutional judges asked Luxembourg to weigh in.

9. We called this in May: what Avv. Aprigliano already told Il Giornale

The situation described above did not come out of nowhere for our firm. When Decision No. 63/2026 was first reported, most headlines described it as the definitive end of Italian citizenship by descent — “the tombstone on jure sanguinis,” as several outlets put it. Aprigliano International Law Firm read it differently, and said so on the record.

In an interview published by Il Giornale on May 8, 2026 — “Cittadinanza italiana jure sanguinis, Aprigliano: ‘La sentenza della Consulta apre una nuova fase: ora la partita si sposta nei tribunali e può arrivare alla Corte UE'” — Avv. Salvatore Aprigliano identified the EU-law front as the point most likely to reopen the case, months before Order No. 147/2026 existed:

“European law looks at the concrete effects of rules, beyond the formal classifications adopted by States. If a national measure affects the status of an EU citizen, proportionality, individual assessment, protection of legitimate expectations, and an effective possibility of defense all come into play. This is the ground on which the matter could shift before the Court of Justice.”

On July 23, 2026, that is exactly what happened: the Constitutional Court itself referred the retroactivity question to the CJEU, on grounds of proportionality and the effects of the reform on EU citizenship, the same reasoning Aprigliano had already laid out to Il Giornale eleven weeks earlier.

10. Why the EU referral matters: the European citizenship angle

Anyone recognized as an Italian citizen automatically becomes a citizen of the European Union. This is why the case reaches Luxembourg at all, a question we break down in detail in the second episode of The Aprigliano Brief.

In earlier rulings, Rottmann, Tjebbes, and Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet, the Court of Justice placed strict limits on national laws that cause a person to lose citizenship they already hold, requiring individual review and a real opportunity to keep or recover that status.

The Tajani Reform works differently: rather than framing the effect as a loss of citizenship, Article 3-bis is framed as an “original preclusion”, treating certain people as though they never acquired citizenship in the first place, without individual review and without a transition period for those affected.

The Italian government argues those earlier CJEU cases are distinguishable because they involved citizenship that had already been formally recognized. The question the CJEU must now resolve is whether the same EU-law protections extend to people who have not yet obtained formal recognition but who, under Italian law as it stood before the reform, would have qualified for it by descent.

For the full legal analysis, including the underlying CJEU case law and how it applies to Article 3-bis, see our full guide to EU law and the Tajani Decree.

11. What happens next, step by step

The preliminary ruling proceedings are now pending before the CJEU as Case C-816/26, Picuso. The Court will interpret Articles 9 TEU and 20 TFEU in relation to the question referred by the Italian Constitutional Court. No judgment on the merits has yet been issued.

There is no official timetable for Picuso. As a general benchmark, preliminary-ruling proceedings completed by the Court of Justice in 2025 took an average of 16.9 months. Individual cases can take more or less time depending on their procedural course. Applicants should therefore think in terms of many months rather than weeks.

Once the CJEU answers the preliminary question, the Italian Constitutional Court will resume the proceedings suspended by Order No. 147/2026 and complete its review in light of the CJEU’s interpretation of EU law.

 

12. How Order No. 147/2026 affects your Italian citizenship by descent case 

If your case is already pending in an Italian court:
The EU-law argument may already be part of your petition, depending on when and how it was filed. The judge is not required to suspend your case, but Order No. 147/2026 makes it considerably harder for a court to treat the EU-law issue as irrelevant or already resolved.

In practice, a number of first-instance courts have already chosen to suspend or adjourn citizenship cases while waiting for the CJEU’s answer in Picuso. That is an emerging procedural practice, not a nationwide rule, and different judges may still proceed differently.

If you tried to get a consular appointment before March 27, 2025, but could not:
This is a separate legal argument from the general EU-law challenge. Decision No. 63/2026 expressly left this question open. Depending on the facts, a judge may consider genuine, documented attempts to start the process, even without a completed appointment, legally relevant.

For a full breakdown of this evidentiary standard, see our episode on Proof of Activation After the Tajani Decree.

If your case was denied at first instance:
Order No. 147/2026 may strengthen an appeal, particularly if the first-instance court treated the EU-law issue as irrelevant, inapplicable, or already settled by Decision No. 63/2026. Appeal deadlines are not paused or extended by this order, they continue to run and must be respected.

If you have not yet filed a case:
You have not lost the benefit of a future favorable CJEU ruling simply because your case was not filed before July 23, 2026. The CJEU’s eventual interpretation will apply to Italian judges deciding all affected cases, including those filed after Order No. 147/2026.

13. Comparison table: before vs. after the Tajani Reform

14. Checklist: what should you do right now?

• If you have a pending case with legal counsel: confirm the EU-law argument is already included in your filings.
• If you received a negative judgment: check your appeal deadline immediately, it is not paused by Order No. 147/2026.
• If you tried to get a consular appointment before March 27, 2025: gather all receipts, confirmations, tracking numbers, and correspondence proving the date and nature of your attempt.
• If you have not yet filed: continue collecting your documentation. Filing does not need to wait for the CJEU’s ruling, and an early, complete filing places you in a clearer procedural position if the law changes again.
• Avoid relying on social media summaries or forum threads for your specific case, procedural details vary significantly depending on individual facts and the court involved. Every Italian citizenship by descent case is different.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is Order No. 147/2026?

It is a ruling by the Italian Constitutional Court, filed July 23, 2026, suspending pending cases on the Tajani Reform and referring a question on the compatibility of Article 3-bis with EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

2. Does Order No. 147/2026 mean Italian citizenship by descent is available again for everyone?

No. Article 3-bis remains in force. The order only opens a formal, binding review process before the CJEU; it does not change eligibility rules today.

3. What is Article 3-bis of Law No. 91/1992?

It is the provision, introduced by the 2025 Tajani Reform, that treats a person born abroad who holds another citizenship as if they never acquired Italian citizenship, unless a specific exception applies — including retroactively, for people born before the reform.

4. Why did the Constitutional Court refer this case to the EU Court of Justice?

Because Italian citizenship also confers EU citizenship, and the Court determined that whether the reform’s retroactive restrictions comply with EU law (specifically Articles 9 TEU and 20 TFEU) requires a binding interpretation from the CJEU, which has exclusive authority to interpret EU law.

5. How long will the CJEU take to decide?

There is no official timetable for Case C-816/26, Picuso. As a general benchmark, preliminary-ruling proceedings completed by the Court of Justice in 2025 took an average of 16.9 months, although individual cases can take more or less time.

6. Is the consular application route reopened by Order No. 147/2026?

No. Order No. 147/2026 did not itself change the eligibility rules established by Article 3-bis or reopen any route excluded under the current legislation. The preliminary ruling proceedings concern the compatibility of the referred aspect of Article 3-bis with EU law.

7. Did the Constitutional Court change its position from Judgment No. 63/2026?

Not expressly. In Order No. 147/2026, the Constitutional Court maintained the EU-law reasoning it had adopted in Judgment No. 63/2026, but nevertheless decided to refer the question to the CJEU so that Luxembourg could provide the definitive interpretation of Articles 9 TEU and 20 TFEU.

This creates a tension with the earlier conclusion that the EU-law answer was sufficiently clear not to require a preliminary reference.

8. Can a law be constitutional under Italian law but still violate EU law?

Yes. These are two distinct legal orders. If the CJEU finds the retroactive restrictions incompatible with EU law, Italian judges will have to set them aside in the affected cases, even though the Constitutional Court did not declare the law unconstitutional.

9. What happens if the CJEU finds the Tajani Reform’s retroactive restrictions incompatible with EU law?

Italian judges will be required to set aside the incompatible restrictions in affected cases, and those claims would then generally be assessed under the law in force before the reform, without the new generational limits.

10. What happens if the CJEU finds the restrictions compatible with EU law?

The general EU-law challenge to Article 3-bis would not succeed, and Italian judges could continue applying the reform. Other defenses, such as documented pre-March 27, 2025 attempts to obtain a consular appointment, may still remain available depending on the individual case.

11. Will my pending citizenship case be automatically suspended because of Order No. 147/2026?

No. Only the three cases before the Constitutional Court were suspended. Ordinary Italian courts handling individual citizenship cases are not automatically bound to suspend; each judge decides independently how to proceed.

In practice, however, a number of first-instance courts have already chosen to suspend or adjourn citizenship cases while waiting for the CJEU’s answer in Picuso. That is an emerging procedural practice, not a nationwide rule, and different judges may still proceed differently.

12. Can a judge recognize my citizenship before the CJEU rules?

Yes. Nothing in Order No. 147/2026 prevents a judge from ruling in your favor beforehand, including by setting aside Article 3-bis if the judge independently finds it incompatible with EU law, or by recognizing the relevance of documented pre-reform efforts.

13. I tried to get a consular appointment before March 27, 2025, but couldn’t. Do I have an additional argument?

Yes, potentially. Decision No. 63/2026 expressly left this question open. Judgment No. 3335/2026 from the Court of Bologna recognized legal relevance in a documented, genuine intent to seek recognition even without a completed appointment, when the administrative channel proved objectively unworkable.

14. My case was denied. Does Order No. 147/2026 help my appeal?

It may strengthen an appeal, particularly if the first-instance court treated the EU-law argument as irrelevant or already settled. However, appeal deadlines are not extended or paused by this order and must still be respected.

15. Should I wait for the CJEU’s ruling before filing my citizenship case?

No. Waiting provides no additional legal protection. Continuing to gather documentation and filing once your file is complete places your claim in a clearer procedural position, particularly if the law changes again before the CJEU rules.

16. Where can I read the official text of Order No. 147/2026?

The official ruling is published on the Constitutional Court’s website: cortecostituzionale.it/scheda-pronuncia/2026/147.

About Aprigliano International Law Firm

Aprigliano International Law Firm, led by cassation lawyer Avv. Salvatore Aprigliano, focuses exclusively on the recognition of Italian citizenship by descent (jure sanguinis) for clients primarily based in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The firm has followed the litigation on the Tajani Reform since its introduction in 2025, including representing the applicant in Tribunal of Bologna Judgment No. 3335/2026 and No. 4038/2026, and continues to monitor developments before the Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the Italian legislature on behalf of its clients.

Request a case review

If you would like to understand how Order No. 147/2026 applies to your specific situation, check your eligibility for Italian citizenship by descent or read our full FAQ on Order No. 147/2026 for a detailed breakdown by case type.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Aprigliano International Law Firm. Individual outcomes depend on the specific facts, documents, and law applicable to each matter.