Section 9.1 of Judgment No. 63/2026 of the Italian Constitutional Court: Commencement of Activities Directed Toward the Recognition of Italian Citizenship

Judgment No. 63/2026 of the Italian Constitutional Court introduces a matter of particular legal significance by distinguishing between those individuals who obtained a consular appointment prior to March 27, 2025, and those who, having “commenced the citizenship recognition procedure,” were unable to obtain such appointment within the prescribed deadline.

The original wording of the decision provides as follows:

“Resta impregiudicata, peraltro (in quanto estranea al giudizio a quo e dunque non sollevata dal rimettente), la questione relativa alla differenziazione tra chi ha ricevuto l’appuntamento e chi ha avviato la procedura di riconoscimento della cittadinanza, ma non ha ricevuto l’appuntamento entro le 23:59 del 27 marzo 2025.”

Translated into English:

“The issue concerning the distinction between those who obtained an appointment and those who commenced the citizenship recognition procedure but did not receive an appointment by 11:59 p.m. on March 27, 2025, remains unresolved, insofar as it falls outside the scope of the main proceedings and was therefore not referred by the referring court.”

The Italian expression “avviare la procedura” must be understood as referring to the formal initiation of a series of acts, activities, and procedural steps directed toward the recognition of a legal right, namely, the recognition of Italian citizenship jure sanguinis.

Accordingly, the concept does not merely refer to the material acquisition of an administrative appointment, but rather to the effective commencement of the recognition procedure through concrete acts undertaken for the purpose of exercising the underlying right.

Within this context, the Constitutional Court implicitly and spontaneously acknowledges the existence of a distinct category of individuals who attempted to exercise their right but were unable to complete the process due to circumstances beyond their control, including the material impossibility of securing a consular appointment, the collapse of the “Prenotami” system, excessive waiting lists, or the unavailability of appointments at Italian consulates.

The Court expressly clarifies that it does not rule upon this specific category of persons, not because such individuals lack legal protection, but because the issue was not formally submitted for adjudication within the constitutional proceedings under review. Consequently, the Court does not issue an adverse determination against such individuals; rather, it acknowledges the existence of a differentiated legal situation that remains open to future judicial interpretation and protection.

This aspect acquires particular relevance when read in conjunction with Section 9.2.2 of the judgment, wherein the Court recognizes that, from the standpoint of legitimate expectations and reasonable reliance, individuals who remained inactive cannot automatically be treated in the same manner as those who undertook concrete acts aimed at initiating the recognition procedure prior to the legislative reform.

Accordingly, the legal inquiry no longer appears to be limited exclusively to the following question:

“Did the applicant obtain an appointment prior to the statutory deadline?”

But rather extends to the following:

“Can the applicant demonstrate that the citizenship recognition procedure had already been effectively initiated prior to the cutoff date?”

Within this new interpretative framework, evidence assumes a central role. Several Italian courts have already recognized that the concrete intention to exercise the right may be established through multiple forms of evidence, even where the procedure could not ultimately be completed due to the administrative inefficiency of the Italian system itself.

By way of example only, such evidentiary elements may include:

• - emails sent to the relevant consulate requesting information or appointments;
• - screenshots evidencing repeated attempts to access the “Prenotami” system;
• - communications made by attorneys acting on behalf of the applicant;
• - powers of attorney granted for the purpose of initiating the procedure;
• - the procurement, translation, and apostille of documentation intended exclusively for Italian citizenship recognition proceedings;
• - certificates issued during the years 2024 and 2025 for the specific purpose of filing a citizenship application.

Particular significance attaches to the judgments issued by the Court of Palermo on February 13, 2025, and by the Court of Bologna on April 17, 2025, both of which held that the concrete and unequivocal manifestation of intent directed toward initiating the citizenship recognition procedure may, under certain circumstances, be deemed equivalent to the effective administrative filing of the application, particularly where access to the procedure was prevented by structural deficiencies within the Italian consular system itself.

Nevertheless, following publication of the grounds of the Italian Constitutional Court’s judgment, both the Court of Bologna and the Court of Brescia adopted a more restrictive interpretative approach, rejecting recognition petitions filed by individuals falling within the aforementioned category.

However, such subsequent rulings do not necessarily constitute a definitive rejection of this legal category or of the legal principles underpinning it, given that — as expressly stated in the Constitutional Court’s own decision quoted above — the Constitutional Court did not adjudicate any issue concerning such individuals, limiting itself solely to acknowledging the existence of a differentiated category of persons who had initiated the citizenship recognition procedure prior to the legislative reform but were unable to obtain an appointment or formally submit their application due to circumstances beyond their control.

Potential Application to “1948 Cases”

This interpretation may also prove particularly relevant for individuals pursuing so-called “1948 cases,” namely those cases in which Italian citizenship is claimed through the maternal line prior to 1948 and therefore necessarily requires the filing of judicial proceedings before the Italian courts.

Unlike the administrative consular procedure, individuals pursuing a 1948 case have no opportunity to reserve a consular appointment in order to secure their legal position while gathering the necessary documentation. Their sole legal avenue is judicial in nature, and this does not arise from personal choice, but rather from the structure of the Italian legal system itself and from the consolidated jurisprudence of the Italian Supreme Court, which recognized the right of women to transmit Italian citizenship to their descendants.

For this reason, individuals who had undertaken concrete preparatory acts for the filing of judicial proceedings prior to March 27, 2025, may arguably find themselves in an even more vulnerable position than those proceeding through the ordinary administrative consular route.

Accordingly, it appears legally reasonable to maintain that such individuals should likewise fall within the protected category of persons who had already initiated the recognition procedure prior to the legislative reform. The retention of legal counsel, execution of powers of attorney, collection of supporting documentation, official translations, and apostilles all constitute objective indicia of conduct unequivocally directed toward the exercise of the right to Italian citizenship.

The final wording of Section 9.1 therefore opens a significant interpretative space which may, even within the framework of the so-called Tajani Law, operate in favor of numerous individuals who demonstrated active conduct directed toward exercising their right to recognition of Italian citizenship, whether through concrete attempts to obtain a consular appointment or through activities directly connected and preliminary to the commencement of judicial proceedings.

In this respect, the future evolution of Italian case law — and potentially even a subsequent intervention by the Italian Constitutional Court itself — may broaden the scope of judicial protection afforded to situations currently excluded by legislation that has been regarded by broad sectors of the legal community and by the Italian diaspora worldwide as deeply restrictive and unjust with respect to the exercise of the right to recognition of Italian citizenship.

Pablo Munini, Attorney at Law