Italy’s Constitutional Court is reviewing challenges to the new rules introduced by the Tajani decree for Italian citizenship by descent. The key issues are whether the new rules operate retroactively, whether they unlawfully remove rights acquired at birth, and whether people who could not obtain consular appointments before the rules changed should still be judged under the old rules.
On June 9, arguments were made before Italy’s Constitutional Court against the new rules introduced by the Tajani decree. The civil courts of Campobasso and Mantua had requested constitutional review and raised doubts about whether the new rules comply with Italy’s Constitution.
One of the central arguments concerns retroactivity. The challenge is based on the idea that the decree deprives people of a right they acquired at birth. According to the argument presented, the Italian Supreme Court has stated that the right to apply for Italian citizenship by descent is gained at birth. The question before the Constitutional Court is therefore how a law introduced in 2025 can remove a right that a person already acquired when they were born.
Another major issue is the way the decree was introduced. The rules changed overnight, with no notice and no grace period. People who were waiting for appointments at Italian consulates were not given time to file their applications before the new rules took effect.
This is significant because many applicants had been trying to book appointments with their local Italian consulate but could not do so. The transcript describes it as common knowledge that Italian consulates were not releasing enough appointments for people who wanted to begin the citizenship process. As a result, some applicants’ ability to apply under the previous rules was effectively cut off overnight.
The Constitutional Court also heard arguments involving minor children. The claim is that the Tajani decree violated the citizenship rights of minors because the rules changed for them as well, even though minor children were not in a position to enforce their own rights before the change.
A further argument concerns European Union rules. Because Italian citizenship also confers EU citizenship, the challenge argues that removing recognition of citizenship rights overnight may conflict with EU legal principles. The claim is that people who had acquired the right to citizenship at birth were retroactively deprived of a status connected to EU citizenship.
No decision has been made yet. The Constitutional Court will review the arguments and issue a ruling later.
Consular Appointment Cases Remain a Separate Strategy
A separate legal strategy remains available for people who were unable to obtain consular appointments before the cutoff date. This argument does not depend on whether the Constitutional Court upholds or rejects the Tajani decree.
The strategy applies to people who can show that:
- They were eligible under the old citizenship-by-descent rules;
- They tried to book an appointment before the new rules took effect;
- They could not obtain an appointment through no fault of their own;
- The lack of access was caused by the consulate’s failure to provide available appointments.
The argument is that these applicants should be judged under the old rules because they wanted to apply when the old rules were still in effect, but were prevented from doing so by the public administration.
This line of reasoning is being presented in ordinary civil courts in Italy. According to the transcript, several civil courts have already accepted or confirmed this reasoning by ruling that applicants in this situation have the right to be judged under the old rules, regardless of the broader fate of the Tajani decree.
The Constitutional Court may choose to address this category of applicants in its ruling, but the transcript emphasizes that these claims can still be brought separately even if the Constitutional Court does not resolve that issue directly.
Judges’ Silence During the Hearing
The judges reportedly did not provide much commentary or request elaboration during the Constitutional Court hearing. This was described as normal in this type of proceeding.
The lack of questions or visible engagement does not indicate lack of interest, nor does it suggest a likely outcome. In Italian legal proceedings, judges generally hear the parties’ arguments, deliberate separately, and issue their decision later. They do not usually reveal their thinking before the final judgment is made public.
The final ruling will be issued after the Court considers the arguments presented at the hearing. Until then, the outcome remains undecided.
