Italian Citizenship and the Tajani Law: Courts Rule Before the Constitutional Court — The Palermo Case Revives the “Endless Waitlist” Doctrine
While the legal community awaits the hearing scheduled for 11 March before the Italian Constitutional Court, convened after the Tribunal of Turin raised a question of constitutional legitimacy concerning the new provisions of the so-called Tajani Law, the majority of judicial authorities have adopted a position of procedural prudence. In practice, this has meant ordering the suspension of pending proceedings until the Constitutional Court—Italy’s highest interpreter of the Constitution—determines whether the contested legislation is compatible with the constitutional order. Against this backdrop, the Tribunal of Palermo has recently issued decisions reflecting two apparently divergent interpretative approaches. This development has reignited the debate regarding the continuing legal relevance of the so-called “endless waitlist” cases notwithstanding the formal entry into force of the new statutory framework.
In recent months, several Italian courts have been called upon to address a matter of considerable legal complexity: the adjudication of claims for the recognition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis following the entry into force of the restrictive measures introduced by the Italian Government through the Decree-Law of 28 March 2025, subsequently converted into Law No. 74.
While the legal community awaits the hearing scheduled for 11 March before the Italian Constitutional Court, convened after the Tribunal of Turin raised a question of constitutional legitimacy concerning the new provisions of the so-called Tajani Law, the majority of judicial authorities have adopted a position of procedural prudence. In practice, this has meant ordering the suspension of pending proceedings until the Constitutional Court—Italy’s highest interpreter of the Constitution—determines whether the contested legislation is compatible with the constitutional order.
Against this backdrop, the Tribunal of Palermo has recently issued decisions reflecting two apparently divergent interpretative approaches. This development has reignited the debate regarding the continuing legal relevance of the so-called “endless waitlist” cases, notwithstanding the formal entry into force of the new statutory framework.
Unlike other courts—such as those of Rome and Caltanissetta, which have preferred to suspend proceedings pending the Constitutional Court’s ruling—the Sicilian tribunal delivered the first known negative judgment applying the new legislative provisions.
The decision, signed by Acting Judge Carmela Caranna on 7 February 2026, relied upon the provisions introduced by the Tajani Decree of March 2025 in order to deny recognition of Italian citizenship to an Argentine family of Italian descent.
This approach diverges from the procedural strategy that many legal scholars and practitioners regard as the most prudent. Indeed, the suspension of proceedings serves to prevent unnecessary economic and procedural harm to claimants. Should the Constitutional Court ultimately declare the legislation unconstitutional, those who have received an adverse ruling would be compelled either to initiate new proceedings or to challenge the judgment on appeal, thereby incurring additional legal costs and procedural burdens.
However, only one week after the aforementioned judgment, the Tribunal of Palermo issued a second ruling, departing from its previous reasoning and introducing a significant interpretative clarification concerning the application of the new legislation.
In this subsequent decision, the court examined Article 1 of the legislative text introduced by the March 2025 decree, which establishes, as a general rule, a prohibition on the recognition of Italian citizenship for individuals born abroad who hold another nationality. The provision states:
“Persons born abroad, even prior to the entry into force of this article, who possess another citizenship, unless one of the following conditions applies.”
The same provision, however, sets out a number of exceptions under which recognition of citizenship may still be granted.
Particularly relevant is the clause providing that the status of citizen may be recognized, in accordance with the legal framework in force as of 27 March 2025, where an application accompanied by the necessary documentation was submitted to the competent consular authority or municipal office no later than 23:59 (Rome time) on that date.
In the case examined by the court, the claimants demonstrated that they had attempted to submit their request for recognition of Italian citizenship before the Italian Consulate General in Buenos Aires through the consular booking platform Prenot@mi.
According to the documentation produced before the court, the applicants attempted on multiple occasions—between 21 October 2024 and 17 March 2025—to secure an appointment but were unable to do so due to the persistent unavailability of booking slots within the system.
In light of these evidentiary elements, the court concluded that the requirement established under Article 1(a) of the Decree-Law of 28 March 2025, subsequently amended by Conversion Law No. 74, should be deemed satisfied in the circumstances of the case.
This interpretation opens a new dimension in the legal debate surrounding the application of the Tajani Decree, as it acknowledges that the material impossibility of obtaining a consular appointment—a circumstance widely reported by thousands of Italian descendants residing abroad—may constitute a legally relevant factor in assessing compliance with the statutory requirements.
The Position of the Tribunal of Genoa
Another court that has chosen to proceed with judicial determinations despite the pending constitutional review is the Tribunal of Genoa, which has confirmed that it will maintain the hearings already scheduled for April.
According to the interpretation adopted by that court, proceedings must be adjudicated on the basis of the legislation currently in force, regardless of the imminence of the Constitutional Court’s decision in Rome.
An internal document issued by the Eleventh Section of the Civil Court established that cases registered after 00:59 on 27 March 2025 must be resolved “without delay.”
Consequently, the Italian judicial landscape presently appears divided between two interpretative approaches: on the one hand, courts that prefer to suspend proceedings pending constitutional review; on the other, courts that consider it necessary to adjudicate cases immediately under the existing statutory framework, even though the legal context may soon be modified.
The Legal Significance of the Second Palermo Judgment
Of particular legal interest is the second decision issued by the Tribunal of Palermo on 13 February, which articulates a noteworthy interpretative principle.
In that ruling, the court effectively equated the actual submission—or demonstrable attempt to submit—documentation to the competent administrative authority with the concrete manifestation of the applicant’s intention to initiate the citizenship recognition procedure, even where such initiation was prevented by the inefficiencies of the Italian administrative system.
It is precisely this factual situation—the inability to secure consular appointments—that gave rise to the judicial phenomenon known as the “endless waitlist” cases
In practical terms, this reasoning suggests that even if the Tajani Decree were not ultimately declared constitutionally invalid on the grounds of retroactivity, individuals who can document genuine attempts to obtain a consular appointment may rely upon the Palermo judgment as a persuasive judicial precedent supporting their claim for recognition of Italian citizenship.
This development demonstrates that the legal progress achieved by descendants of Italian emigrants through judicial litigation remains firmly intact, while simultaneously opening renewed expectations that judicial interpretation may ultimately limit—or potentially dismantle—the effects of what has come to be known as the Tajani system.
Pablo Munini