Italian Citizenship by Descent: What's Happening in the Courts

If you follow citizenship by descent, you've probably seen the same question keep coming up in groups and forums: "so does the reform actually hold up?" The honest answer is that nobody fully knows yet, because three different courts, the Constitutional Court, the EU Court of Justice, and the Court of Cassation, are working the same question from different angles, and they're not all saying the same thing. Here's where things stand, and why 29 October is a date worth watching.

The reform holds up, but not on everything

Law 74/2025 (formerly Decree-Law 36/2025) limited automatic citizenship transmission to two generations and introduced the "genuine link" test, with 27-28 March 2025 as the cutoff between old and new rules. With judgment no. 63/2026, decided at the public hearing of 11 March 2026 and filed on 30 April 2026 (published in the Official Gazette on 6 May 2026), the Constitutional Court declared the reform largely legitimate: the questions raised under articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution and under EU law were found unfounded, others inadmissible on procedural grounds.

One detail worth knowing: according to a commentary on the ruling published by Questione Giustizia, before formal recognition the holder would have, in the Court's reading, only a "mere legal expectation" requiring prior ascertainment, not yet full exercise of the right. It's exactly this reading that is now being challenged by another court, as we'll see.

The question sent to the EU Court of Justice

With order no. 147/2026, the Constitutional Court suspended part of the proceeding (arising from the joined Mantua and Campobasso cases) and referred it to the EU Court of Justice, where it was registered as case C-816/26 ("Picuso"), with the referral reaching Luxembourg on 23 July 2026. The question, in substance: do articles 9 of the EU Treaty and 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU allow a member state to treat citizenship as never acquired for people born abroad, even for those born before the reform itself? The window for written observations opened on 26 August 2026 and runs roughly 70 days, so it closes around early November 2026, the next concrete step to watch.

Until the Court of Justice answers, with no hearing date set yet, the constitutional proceeding on this point remains suspended and article 3-bis of the reform stays in force.

There's also a second open front on the same article 3-bis, from a different angle. The Court of Avellino, with an order dated 15 September 2026, referred it back to the Constitutional Court again: the case concerns a minor born abroad to a parent already recognized as an Italian citizen by a final judgment, whose birth record the local registry office refused to transcribe by applying article 3-bis. For the judge, treating someone born with citizenship already acquired under the previous law as if they had "never acquired it" amounts, in substance, to a retroactive revocation, and raises legitimacy concerns under article 22 of the Constitution too, which bars stripping someone of citizenship for political reasons. The Constitutional Court had already rejected this reading in judgment 63/2026, calling the rule an "original bar to acquisition," not a revocation, but the Avellino question remains pending regardless.

The Court of Cassation, meanwhile, is heading a different way

In May 2026 the Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 13818/2026, described citizenship by descent as an absolute subjective right of constitutional importance that exists from the holder's birth and is permanent and non-forfeitable, a framing closer to an original right than a mere expectation. The tension between this reading and the Constitutional Court's has not gone unnoticed among lawyers who follow the field.

Add to this a ruling from the United Civil Sections: judgment no. 24045/2026, decided in chambers on 14 April 2026 and filed on 26 July 2026, held that a minor child born abroad who was already a dual citizen from birth (Italian and a citizen of their birth country) does not lose Italian citizenship even if the Italian parent naturalizes elsewhere during the child's minority. This reverses the previous line, which held that citizenship was lost; the Ministry of the Interior has already adopted the new position in a circular dated 10 August 2026. Anyone whose case was stuck on exactly this point should have it reassessed.

Courts are siding with descendants of pre-unification ancestors

Another front, less discussed but relevant if your line runs through an ancestor born before 1861: can an ancestor born before Italian unification still pass on citizenship? The Court of Bologna, in a judgment dated 12 March 2026, said yes. And on 30 June 2026 the Court of Appeal of Brescia, ruling on a different case on the same question, rejected the Ministry of the Interior's appeal and upheld citizenship recognition for the descendants of an ancestor born in Mantua in 1803 who emigrated to Brazil: for the court, being alive in 1866, when Mantua joined the Kingdom of Italy, was enough to make the ancestor an Italian citizen at that moment, absent proof of renunciation or acquisition of another citizenship.

These are two wins, in separate proceedings, not yet a settled line at the Cassation level, but they point in the same direction as the "permanent right" reading the Cassation has already adopted elsewhere.

Why 29 October matters

According to court-tracking followed by the community (the weekly r/juresanguinis roundup, dated late September 2026), the Court of Cassation would have set a hearing for 29 October 2026 on a Ministry appeal against a citizenship recognition based on a pre-unification ancestor, the same subject as the Bologna and Brescia cases.

If a hearing like this does take place and the Cassation confirms the Bologna and Brescia approach, the "permanent right" reading gains ground, the same one the Cassation already used in judgment 13818/2026, adding pressure on the Constitutional Court's more cautious reading. If it instead sides with the Ministry, cases built on a pre-unification ancestor become harder to sustain. Either way, it's an issue that could shape how lower courts handle similar cases in coming months, so it's worth following whether or not the date holds.

What this means in practice if you have a case open

If your application was already filed before 27-28 March 2025, these rulings affect you less directly: you remain under the old rules regardless of how these proceedings turn out.

If instead your eligibility depends on the new two-generation line and the genuine-link test, or if your line runs through an ancestor born before 1861, these proceedings could change your real odds in the coming months. This isn't the moment to make final decisions based on one ruling: it's the moment to keep your case under watch with someone following the field closely, so you can move as soon as things clarify instead of finding out late.

Sources

• Judgment no. 63/2026, Constitutional Court (official record)
• Questione Giustizia, first-read commentary on judgment 63/2026
• Order no. 147/2026, Constitutional Court (official record)
• Case C-816/26 (Picuso) at the EU Court of Justice
• Cassation judgment no. 13818/2026: citizenship as a permanent, non-forfeitable right
• United Civil Sections judgment no. 24045/2026, full text
• Court of Bologna, pre-unification ancestor
• Court of Appeal of Brescia, 30 June 2026
• Court of Avellino, order of 15 September 2026