Italian Citizenship: Ministry of the Interior Circular of 10 August 2026 Opens the Door to Reconsideration of “Minor Issue” Denials
The Ministry provides that, where a previous denial was based exclusively on the former interpretation of Articles 7 and 12 of Law No. 555/1912, a new decision may be issued in accordance with the legal interpretation established by the recent judgment of the Joint Sections. The Circular, however, contains a further fundamental clarification. The relevant passage may be translated into English as follows: “Where the denial previously issued was based exclusively on the former interpretative approach to Articles 7 and 12 of Law No. 555/1912 — namely, on the basis of the aforementioned Order No. 17161/2023 — a new decision may be issued in accordance with the interpretation set out in the more recent judgment of the Joint Sections, applying the legal framework in force at the time when the person concerned submitted the application for recognition of Italian citizenship.”
Judgment No. 24045/2026 Changes the Legal Landscape
The Joint Sections of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation resolved the interpretative conflict in Judgment No. 24045/2026.
In particular, the Court held that special consideration must be given to the legal status of a so-called “dual citizen by operation of law” (bipolide di diritto), namely a person who acquired two citizenships at birth: Italian citizenship iure sanguinis and, at the same time, the citizenship of the country of birth iure soli.
The Circular reproduces a fundamental principle established by the judgment, which may be translated into English as follows:
“The legal status of a dual citizen by operation of law, who acquired at birth both Italian citizenship iure sanguinis and the citizenship iure soli of the State of residence, is governed autonomously and comprehensively by Article 7 and is characterised by the fact that loss of Italian citizenship requires a voluntary and informed choice, as expressly confirmed by Article 8(1)(2) of Law No. 555/1912.”
Put more simply, where a person acquired both Italian citizenship iure sanguinis and the citizenship of the country of birth iure soli from birth, that person's legal status is governed by Article 7 of Law No. 555/1912.
Accordingly, the subsequent foreign naturalisation of the parent while the child was still a minor does not, in and of itself, result in the automatic loss of the child's Italian citizenship.
Under the principle established by the Court, loss of Italian citizenship by a bipolide di diritto requires a voluntary and informed choice.
This is the central legal principle underlying the change in approach to the so-called minor issue.
Temporal Scope: Naturalisation Between 1 July 1912 and 15 August 1992
The Circular contains another fundamental clarification: the judgment of the Joint Sections applies exclusively to cases governed by Law No. 555/1912.
The relevant passage of the Circular may be translated into English as follows:
“The judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation concerns exclusively cases governed by Law No. 555/1912. In practical terms, these are cases in which the foreign naturalisation of the cohabiting parent occurred between 1 July 1912 and 15 August 1992. It therefore does not concern cases in which the parent's foreign naturalisation occurred on or before 30 June 1912.”
The Circular further states that, with respect to the latter cases, and unless and until a different interpretation emerges from the Supreme Court of Cassation, the principles established in Order No. 454/2024 must continue to be applied in relation to the legal framework established by the Italian Civil Code of 1865.
Accordingly, determining whether the new interpretation applies requires careful verification of the precise date on which the parent acquired foreign citizenship through naturalisation.
In practical terms, Judgment No. 24045/2026 applies to cases in which such naturalisation occurred between 1 July 1912 and 15 August 1992.
It would therefore be incorrect to state that the judgment has eliminated the minor issue indiscriminately in relation to naturalisations occurring during any historical period.
The date of naturalisation remains a decisive legal factor.
The Key Issue: Applications Submitted Before 27 March 2025
This is potentially one of the most significant consequences of the Circular.
The Ministry provides that, where a previous denial was based exclusively on the former interpretation of Articles 7 and 12 of Law No. 555/1912, a new decision may be issued in accordance with the legal interpretation established by the recent judgment of the Joint Sections.
The Circular, however, contains a further fundamental clarification.
The relevant passage may be translated into English as follows:
“Where the denial previously issued was based exclusively on the former interpretative approach to Articles 7 and 12 of Law No. 555/1912 — namely, on the basis of the aforementioned Order No. 17161/2023 — a new decision may be issued in accordance with the interpretation set out in the more recent judgment of the Joint Sections, applying the legal framework in force at the time when the person concerned submitted the application for recognition of Italian citizenship.”
This means that the matter should not simply be treated as a new application filed in 2026.
Rather, the competent administrative authority must reconsider the matter by reference to the legal framework applicable at the time the original application was submitted.
Applications Submitted or Appointments Communicated Before 27 March 2025
The same protection applies where the original application was submitted before 27 March 2025 or where the appointment had been communicated to the applicant by the competent authority by that same date.
In such cases, according to the analysis set out in the present text, the restrictions on recognition of Italian citizenship introduced by Article 3-bis of Law No. 91/1992 would not apply. Article 3-bis was introduced by Decree-Law No. 36 of 28 March 2025, subsequently converted, with amendments, into Law No. 74 of 23 May 2025.
In other words, where an individual fell within one of those circumstances and subsequently received a denial based exclusively on the former interpretation of the minor issue, reconsideration of the case would have to take place by reference to the legal framework applicable at the time of the original application, rather than by applying the subsequent restrictions introduced by Article 3-bis.
This aspect may be particularly significant for individuals who had commenced their citizenship proceedings before the 2025 reform.
A New Legal Question for the Children or Grandchildren of Applicants Whose Claims Were Denied?
This gives rise to a particularly significant legal question requiring careful consideration.
The individuals whose applications were denied were not necessarily the only persons adversely affected by those decisions.
Their descendants may also have been affected as a consequence of an administrative decision based on an interpretation of Articles 7 and 12 that has subsequently been superseded.
The following question therefore arises:
What is the legal position of the children or grandchildren of a person whose citizenship application was denied before the 2025 reform on the basis of the interpretation of the “minor issue” that has now been abandoned?
Could those descendants argue before the courts that their legal position should be assessed on the basis that their ancestor's application ought to have been determined under the legal framework in force before the restrictions introduced in 2025?
Precision is essential here: the Circular does not expressly answer this question, nor does it automatically recognise such a right in favour of descendants.
Nevertheless, the Ministry's recognition that a new decision may now be issued in respect of the original proceedings by applying the legal framework in force when the original application was submitted raises a potentially significant legal issue that warrants consideration on a case-by-case basis.
Accordingly, rather than describing this as an already established right of children and grandchildren, it is more accurate to regard it as a potentially new area of legal interpretation and judicial protection, the consequences of which will need to be assessed in light of the circumstances of each individual case.
Pablo Munini