On April 30, Italy’s Constitutional Court published its much-anticipated ruling on the 2025 citizenship reform, also known as the Tajani Decree (Law 74/2025). The Court rejected the principal challenges raised by the Tribunal of Turin and confirmed that the Italian Parliament was within its rights to introduce a generational cap on the transmission of Italian citizenship by descent.
This is significant news. It is not, however, the last word. The decision, Judgment No. 63/2026, is articulated, nuanced, and leaves several questions deliberately open. For those of you with applications already filed, with confirmed consular appointments, or with cases moving through the Italian courts, the practical landscape continues to evolve.
Below, we walk through what the ruling actually says, what it doesn’t, what comes next, and what your realistic options are now.
Let’s get to it!
What The Court Has Decided
Judgment No. 63/2026: the reform stands, for now.
The Constitutional Court rejected the principal challenges raised against the Tajani Decree (Decree-Law 36/2025, converted with amendments into Law 74/2025) and confirmed that Parliament was within its rights to introduce a generational cap on the transmission of Italian citizenship by descent.
In practical terms, the rules introduced in March 2025 remain fully in force. The last Italian-born ancestor in your line must be your parent or grandparent. That ancestor must have remained exclusively an Italian citizen throughout their life, with no voluntary acquisition of any other nationality. Anyone outside this framework is, in principle, excluded from automatic recognition.
This is not the outcome many of us had hoped for. It is, however, only one chapter of a longer story. The Court left several questions deliberately open, and three further constitutional challenges are already on the calendar.
The judgment is articulated, technical, and in some passages openly invites future challenges. Reading it carefully, what emerges is not a closed door but a door that has been narrowed. The strategic question for our clients is no longer “will the law change?” It is “how do I navigate what now exists, and what realistic paths remain?”
A Quick Refresher: What The Tajani Decree Actually Does
For readers who have not been following the citizenship debate closely, here is the framework we are operating within. The new Italian citizenship rules introduced by the Tajani Decree impose a double condition. Both must be met to obtain recognition of Italian citizenship by descent.
1. The generational limit. The last Italian-born ancestor in your line must be your parent or grandparent. It is no longer possible to recover Italian citizenship where the last Italian-born ancestor was a great-grandparent or further back.
2. No interruption in the bloodline. That Italian-born ancestor must have remained exclusively an Italian citizen and must not have voluntarily acquired any other citizenship. Any Italian who, during their lifetime, acquired a different nationality effectively caused an interruption of the bloodline, making it impossible for their descendants to recover Italian citizenship.
One exception applies, and only one. If your application was already filed before a consulate, an Italian municipality, or an Italian court by 23:59 on 27 March 2025, the old rules continue to apply to you.
Why The Court Upheld The Reform
The “genuine link” doctrine.
The heart of the Court’s reasoning rests on a concept drawn from international law: the genuine link between a citizen and their state. The Court accepted the argument that, after generations abroad and in the absence of any concrete connection with Italy (language, residency, civic engagement), the automatic transmission of citizenship across an indefinite number of generations had become, in the Court’s own words, an anomaly. The reform, the Court held, restores a degree of coherence to the system and falls within the legitimate discretion of Parliament.
Importantly, the genuine link criterion is not a doctrinal innovation of this judgment. It is firmly anchored in Italian and supranational sources, all expressly cited by the Court.
1. Italian Court of Cassation precedent. The same criterion has already been invoked by the Court of Cassation, both in its First Section (judgment 3564 of 8 February 2024, point 4) and earlier in its United Sections (judgment 25317 of 2022, point XI).
2. The European Convention on Nationality. Article 7(1)(e) of the 1997 Convention expressly authorises loss of nationality where there is a “lack of a genuine link between the State Party and a national habitually residing abroad.”
3. The Court of Justice of the European Union. The CJEU has likewise endorsed the genuine link criterion, both in cases concerning the conferral of citizenship (Grand Chamber, judgment of 29 April 2025, Case C-181/23, Commission v. Republic of Malta) and in cases concerning its loss (Grand Chamber, judgment of 12 March 2019, Case C-221/17, Tjebbes).
This matters because the Italian reform is not an outlier. It sits inside a broader European trend that ties citizenship to substantive connection with the state, rather than to bloodline alone.
A careful technical distinction.
The Court also drew a careful technical distinction that does much of the work in this judgment. The reform, it held, does not revoke citizenship already held; it precludes its acquisition.
This is the part of the judgment we find most open to legitimate criticism. For decades, all the courts (including the Constitutional Court itself) have ruled that citizenship is a status acquired automatically at birth. The new framing, that the lack of a genuine link means the citizenship was never actually acquired automatically, is precisely the legal architecture being challenged in the Campobasso cases scheduled for June.
The distinction matters because Article 22 of the Italian Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protect against the arbitrary deprivation of citizenship, and would have demanded much stricter scrutiny had the reform been characterised as a revocation. By framing it as a preclusion of acquisition, the Court applied a more deferential standard, and the reform survived.
What The Court Did Not Decide
Three issues left explicitly open.
Several questions remain undecided, and each one represents a future opportunity for legal challenge.
1. The “appointment never received” category. The Court expressly noted that the position of those who attempted to initiate the consular procedure but never received an appointment by 23:59 on 27 March 2025 “remains an open question.” Should they be treated on equal footing with those who managed to secure an appointment? The Court declined to answer. We anticipate a separate constitutional challenge on this specific point. If you are in this category, the documentation of your attempts (emails to the consulate, screenshots of the booking system, formal notices) is the foundation of any future argument.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights argument. Dismissed not on its merits, but for insufficient reasoning by the referring court. The argument can be raised again, more rigorously, in future proceedings.
3. The European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 4. Same situation. Dismissed on procedural grounds, not substantive ones. Open to be raised again when properly framed.
The judgment closes some doors and explicitly leaves others ajar. The legal battle has not ended. It has shifted ground.
What Happens Next
June 9, 2026, and the cases still in play.
The Constitutional Court has scheduled a new public hearing for 9 June 2026, consolidating three further challenges to the reform.
1. The Mantua case. Raises a broader range of constitutional grounds, including the rights of children born abroad. This case takes on issues that the Turin reference did not address.
2. The two Campobasso cases. Arguably the most consequential. The Campobasso judges directly challenge the distinction between “loss of citizenship” and “preclusion from acquisition,” the very distinction the Court used to validate the reform in n. 63/2026. If the Court is persuaded by the Campobasso reasoning, the analytical foundation of the April judgment becomes vulnerable.
Separately, the Italian Supreme Court sitting in Unified Sections (Sezioni Unite) held a hearing on 14 April 2026 regarding the so-called minor issue: a distinct question concerning the citizenship status of descendants of Italians who were minors at the time their parents naturalised abroad. The reasoning and ruling are still to be published. While formally a separate matter, the outcome may have ramifications for the retroactivity of the new law and the operative perimeter of Article 3-bis.
In short, a great deal remains to be decided over the coming months. The battle, in the legal sense, is not over yet.
The legal timeline at a glance.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 27 March 2025, 23:59 | Cut-off for applications under pre-reform rules |
| 28 March 2025 | Tajani Decree (DL 36/2025) takes effect |
| 23 May 2025 | Decree converted into Law 74/2025 |
| 11 March 2026 | Constitutional Court hearing on the Turin challenge |
| 14 April 2026 | Sezioni Unite hearing on the minor issue |
| 30 April 2026 | Judgment No. 63/2026 published. Reform upheld. |
| 9 June 2026 | Constitutional Court hearing on Mantua + Campobasso challenges |
Where You Stand
Practical guidance, by situation.
The implications of the ruling depend entirely on where you are in the citizenship process. Find your situation below for the practical position and what to do next.
| Your Situation | Current Status | What To Do Next |
|---|---|---|
| Application filed, or confirmed appointment received, by 23:59 on 27 March 2025 | Pre-reform rules apply. Position protected. | Continue your process. Contact us if you have any concern about the status of your file. |
| Attempted to book a consular appointment but never received one by the cut-off | Open category, expressly left undecided by the Court. | This is the single most strategically important category to discuss with us. Preserve all documentation of your attempts (emails, screenshots, waiting list confirmations). Contact us to review your evidence. |
| Application rejected after 28 March 2025 on the basis of Article 3-bis | Reopening possible if subsequent rulings shift the legal framework. | Preserve all rejection documents. Contact us so your case stays in our active monitoring. |
| No application yet, ancestry beyond two generations | Now outside the new framework via the descent route. | Read the Plan B section below. Contact us to discuss the alternative pathway. |
| No application yet, ancestry within two generations | Still eligible under the current rules. | Move now. The political climate is volatile, and there is no guarantee the framework will not tighten further. Begin gathering documents and contact us to file. |
| Italian citizenship already formally recognised | No action required. | The reform does not affect recognitions already obtained. Ensure consular records are up to date. |
Get Personalised Advice On Your Case
Plan B: The Path The Reform Deliberately Opened
Naturalisation in two years, not ten, for those of Italian descent.
The same reform that introduced Article 3-bis was deliberately accompanied, in the final part of the legislative text, by a package of compensatory measures designed precisely for those of Italian descent willing to build a real connection with the country. Two changes are central, and together they open a genuine alternative pathway to Italian citizenship.
1. Reduced residency for naturalisation. The residency requirement is reduced from three years to two for individuals of Italian origin. This is the headline measure, and it transforms the calculus for many of our readers.
2. A separate channel of entry outside standard work quotas. A dedicated visa channel has been created for people of Italian descent, removing one of the most restrictive bottlenecks in the Italian immigration system.
For clients with a genuine intention of becoming Italian, two years of effective residence is a finite, predictable, achievable project. We have helped many do exactly this.
The visa routes that make Plan B work.
Establishing lawful residence in Italy is not a single procedure. It is a choice of pathway. The right one depends on your circumstances, your work, and your financial position.
| Visa Route | Best For | Key Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Investor Visa (the “golden visa”) | Clients with capital to deploy | Investment in Italian government bonds, Italian companies, innovative start-ups, or philanthropic donations. |
| Employment / Self-Employment Visa | Those moving to work in or with Italy | Includes the new out-of-quota channel created specifically for people of Italian descent. |
| Digital Nomad Visa | Remote workers | Income from clients or employers based outside Italy. |
| Elective Residency Visa | Those with regular passive income | Pensions, rental income, or dividends sufficient to support yourself without working in Italy. |
Combining residency with a real estate purchase.
For many clients, we recommend combining the visa procedure with the purchase of a home in Italy. The property anchors the residency project, supports the visa application, and constitutes a long-term asset in its own right. For those with a genuine intention of becoming Italian, this is the most stable and predictable route, and one of the areas in which our firm has decades of combined expertise.
We are aware that for many of our readers, relocation is not the workaround they were hoping for. We respect that, completely. But while the legal challenges continue in the Italian courts, our role is to make sure you have a real, achievable Plan B alongside the legal fight.
Our Recommendation
Our recommendation, accordingly, is twofold.
It is worth waiting for the next decisions, namely the Constitutional Court hearing of 9 June 2026 and the publication of the Sezioni Unite reasoning on the minor issue, because the legal landscape may yet shift in your favour. In parallel, however, it makes sense to begin building a Plan B now, so that whatever the courts decide, you still have options.
For pending cases potentially affected by this decision, and for cases already prepared and ready to be filed, we invite you to contact us so we can review your file, explore alternative parallel routes, and build a strategy together that fits your specific circumstances.
Know someone affected by the citizenship reform? Share this article with them. The clearer the picture, the better the decisions they can make.
This briefing is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact us for advice specific to your situation.
